Vol. 689 No. 3
12 Deputy Olwyn Enright asked the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform the progress made by the casino gaming control section of his Department in its review of gambling; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [31473/09]
As the Deputy is aware, I have initiated a wide-ranging review of gambling, the objective of which is to provide Government with options for a new and comprehensive legal and organisational framework governing the gambling architecture in the State. The casino gaming control section of my Department will be responsible for bringing forward proposals, including a draft Bill for a revised gambling code.
Consultation is an essential part of the review currently under way. The control section of my Department, through a public information notice in daily newspapers and on my Department's website, invited submissions from interested parties and members of the public. The closing date for the receipt of submissions is 30 September.
The gaming control section is, as a consequence, consulting widely with stakeholders — statutory, NGO and the private sector — and with the community at large before bringing forward any proposals. My Department will, with the benefit of the consultation process and on the receipt of submissions, develop legislative proposals based on three important considerations which are the hallmark of most well regulated gambling codes. These are that young people and the vulnerable are protected; that gambling should in all respects be fairly and openly conducted; and that gambling is kept free of crime.
The Deputy will appreciate that developing a revised gambling code that is capable of generating broad public support is a complex task. Notwithstanding that, I have instructed the control section in my Department to make every effort to provide me with policy options for a new gambling architecture by the end of the year which will include proposals for a draft Bill on the subject. Ultimately, it will be for Government to decide the policy approach to be legislated for in this area.
The Deputy will also be aware that in tandem with the review of gambling, I decided that the private members' clubs at which gambling activities are carried on will have to comply with relevant anti-money laundering and terrorist financing legislation. On 28 July, I published the Criminal Justice (Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing) Bill 2009 which will transpose the third EU money laundering directive into Irish Law. I expect that the Criminal Justice (Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing) Bill 2009 will be considered by the Oireachtas as a priority this session.
I thank the Minister for his reply. Successive Fianna Fáil-led Governments have shirked their responsibility on this issue. The Minister has taken up the baton and is driving it on, in fairness to him. What protections does the Minister envisage for young people and for those with gambling problems in the forthcoming legislation? What other measures does the Minister envisage to remove criminal elements from the use of casinos? Will the Minister comment on an industry report which concluded that €280 million will be generated for the economy as a result of regulation of casinos? That report also stated that 13,000 jobs would be created by 2020.
I do not accept that Fianna Fáil has shirked its responsibility. Previously in the House I stated that all political parties, whenever they were in Government, veered away from this area because of the difficulties from a legislative point of view. People in this country are operating under very old legislation, which is out of date. It behoves us to move forward. The Deputy may be aware that we tried to have all-party agreement on how to proceed on this but unfortunately——
Has that been scrapped?
Yes, because the Deputy's party leader would not participate and neither would the Labour Party in what was originally an understanding under my predecessor. I have asked my officials to proceed and the public has shown a significant level of interest in the consultation process which we advertised. I have asked my officials to bring forward policy options by the end of the year and I hope to bring a draft Bill to the Government following that.
Is it not the case and does the Minister not understand well that the reason the all-party committee did not get off the ground was because there was an attempt by his predecessor, in conjunction with the then Minister for Finance, to use an all-party committee as a cover to introduce fixed odds betting terminals, FOBTs, into bookies' shops in the Republic of Ireland? If the Minister understands that, and I think he does, I offer my congratulations to him for being persuaded of the campaign that I ran in this House and outside it against the introduction of FOBTs into bookies' shops because of the damage they do to feckless young people. Does the Minister understand that the purpose of that campaign was not to thwart or delay legislation to regulate the casino sector? Responsible law-abiding people in the casino sector want to be regulated and cannot understand why it is taking so long. Will the Minister tell them when, approximately, we are likely to see the publication of such a Bill?
For the second time today, Deputy Rabbitte has done a disservice to the two people he mentioned, namely, Deputy Brian Lenihan and the Taoiseach. To the best of my knowledge at no stage were they interested in any shape or form in FOBTs and any reasonable person would be against FOBTs, as I stated clearly when I eventually understood what they were about.
The Minister and I agree. That is the important thing.
What I had a difficulty with was the way in which the Deputy laid down preconditions in regard to the all-party examination of this issue. Given that this was considered in the casino report, it was important that entire report, warts and all — there were warts in it — would be looked at by the all-party committee but be that as it may, we have now moved on.
I assure the Deputy that nobody in this Government, including the Taoiseach and the Minister for Finance, has at any stage exhorted me, in any way, to proceed with the implementation of legislation involving FOBTs.
A brief supplementary question from Deputy Charles Flanagan.
In fact, I would hazard a guess that these particular gentlemen are against these.
A supplementary question from Deputy Charles Flanagan.
However, it is the case that we will have to legislate in this area to regulate what is, in effect, an unregulated one. We have a duty——
I ask the Minister and the Deputies to allow the Chair to regulate the order of questioning. We set down time limits but we are making very slow progress. I call Deputy Charles Flanagan for a brief supplementary question.
Why has the Minister changed from the course of action contemplated by his predecessor who stated that the publication of any report would be accompanied by recommendations on the part of Government. I have not seen any recommendations on the part of the Minister. When will we see them?
As I said, when I came into this job, I was confronted by what I understood to be an understanding between the Deputy's party, my party and the other main Opposition parties that there would be an effort to look at this area on an all-party basis. That was not possible because the Labour Party——
That is not what I asked, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle.
I am afraid I have no control over the replies.
The Labour Party decided it wanted a precondition that there would be no consideration of FOBTs. I agree with Deputy Rabbitte on the principle of FOBTs in that I disagree with their implementation in this country.
However, the Deputy's party got cold feet.
May I ask the question again?
One or two of its Deputies were very annoyed——
May I ask the question again?
——at the attitude of the Deputy's party leader who obviously saw political opportunity. As I said, I have asked my officials——
The Minister appointed a chairman——
I have asked my officials——
——without telling anybody.
A Deputy from the Deputy's party was nominated as an ad hoc chairman of the group——
The Minister leaked it to the press.
——and exhorted me to proceed with the all-party committee——
Talk about a ham-fisted approach.
——and leave the Labour Party out if it wanted to stay out.
A ham-fisted approach.
As I said earlier——
The Minister had the gall to say he sought consensus.
As I said earlier, I have asked my officials to bring forward policy options with a view to legislating in due course.
13 Deputy Leo Varadkar asked the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform the status of the Thornton Hall prison project; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [31461/09]
In May of this year negotiations with the preferred bidder for the construction of a prison complex at Thornton Hall were broken off as its final offer, which was significantly higher than the original price tendered, was determined to be unaffordable. The original tender competition, which was initiated by the issue of formal invitations to tender in late 2007, was then abandoned as it did not offer the opportunity to obtain the best value for money for the taxpayer in the light of the changed circumstances.
In June of this year the Government reaffirmed its commitment to developing a new prison campus at Thornton Hall and approved the launching of a new tendering process for the construction of a more affordable and better value prison campus at Thornton. The aim is to provide good quality, regime focused accommodation with appropriate support and rehabilitation facilities to prepare prisoners for reintegration back into society. The new facility will provide accommodation for 1,400 prisoners with operational flexibility to accommodate up to 2,200 prisoners in a range of security settings.
The development will now proceed on a phased basis with phase one comprising essential basic preliminary works required for the development including the construction of the access route and perimeter wall. It is intended that this work will proceed in the short term on the basis of separate contracts. The tender documentation and scope of works are currently being drafted. It is anticipated that work on phase one will commence towards the end of this year or early next year.
While phase one work is in progress the procurement process for the buildings and other facilities that will make up the new prison campus will be examined and finalised in accordance with the Department of Finance guidelines for capital projects. The objective is to complete the design and procurement process for the main prison complex while the construction of the phase one work is under way. While the original design has been prepared, work is ongoing on more detailed design plans which are required for the tendering process. The two phase approach means that once a contract is signed for phase two — the main prison development — the fact that the preliminary works envisaged by phase one will already have been completed will allow for construction to commence immediately on the main prison buildings within a secured perimeter.
The development of the new prison campus at Thornton is a complex project which is governed by Department of Finance and EU procurement guidelines. The guidelines set out a range of actions that must take place prior to inviting tenders for the project. The Irish Prison Service is being assisted in this work by the National Development Finance Agency. It is intended to invite tenders for the construction of the phase 2 — the main prison development — next year. I expect the new prison to be operational within three years of the signing of a contract for phase 2.
I have two brief questions because we referred to this issue earlier in the course of Priority Questions. In regard to the phased development, will the Minister indicate clearly the timeframe for the coming on stream of the places or the cells? We know about the access route, the acquisition of land and the roads but we need to know about the newly arrived at format for the provision of beds and what the Minister's definitive plan is in that regard?
I understand maintenance charges for the vacant building site that is Thornton Hall — the greenfield site — are in excess of €120,000 per annum. On what basis are maintenance and security charges being expended when there is nothing on site to be secured?
I will answer the last question. The Deputy will understand the State must protect its property. This is a very significant piece of property so there are ongoing security issues in regard to it given that it will be a sensitive site when it is built on.
In regard to the timelines, as I said, it will be two to three years after the signing of the phase two contract. We hope phase one will start towards the end of this year or early next year. If one looks at that timeline, one is talking about 2013.
No, 2014.
Perhaps 2014. While I accept we will produce 450 new spaces before the end of 2009, I have asked my officials to consider the building of a new block in the Midlands Prison complex, where there is plenty of scope for building, as an interim measure. Given the prognosis for prison population growth, I accept there will be a need at the end of this year for another block despite the implementation of 450 spaces.
A number of Deputies are offering. I will try to facilitate them if the Minister will bear with me.
Will the Minister clarify his statement about maintenance and security fees? Generally, it is not necessary to protect farmland in Ireland. Why is it necessary to protect this farm and spend in excess of €100,000 doing so? Perhaps there is an explanation; I do not know.
I wish to ask the Minister about answers he gave to the House previously which allowed the inference to be drawn that this prison will cost hundreds of millions. The collapse of the deal with Bernard McNamara offers the opportunity to rethink the whole thing. The Minister will shortly be able to get an inner city site from the National Asset Management Agency for a fraction of the folly that was committed at Kilsallaghan, if the Government is successful in enacting the legislation. The Kilsallaghan site is entirely unsuitable.
Is there not a strong argument from people involved in penal reform and penal policy that building a gargantuan prison such as this is the wrong thing to do? If the Minister adds to the Midlands Prison and if he has the prospect of acquiring a site for a fraction of Kilsallaghan in the inner city, which would be much more convenient for people, he should rethink the entire project because one would have to take with a grain of salt his statement that phase two will start next year. Having already spent €40 million on the project, why should we spend more taxpayers' money for a site on a farm in north Dublin which is not suitable for this purpose and may never be realised in the Minister's, or my, political lifetime?
I have nothing to repeat on the security issue of the site. It is only right and proper that the State would protect its interest in this particular site.
From what threat?
Rabbits.
When the buildings are built, it will ultimately be a sensitive site. It is only right and proper——
What does that mean? It is a farm.
The more relevant question is who is providing the security.
If, say, trespassers were on the site, the Deputies opposite would be here criticising the fact people were allowed to go on the site.
Why should trespassers go on the site?
I do not accept Deputy Rabbitte's premise that it is an unacceptable site. It is a very central site, close to Dublin city and provision will be made for bus access, etc. I do not agree with the Deputy's premise that we should build another prison in the inner city. I am surprised a Deputy who represents an urban area would make such a suggestion. It is only right and proper that a prison is located in an open area in which there would not be a possibility of drugs being thrown over its walls, etc. Unfortunately, no matter what we do in Mountjoy——
One cannot throw drugs in over a prison wall. Did the Minister read his own plans?
Best international practice suggests prisons should not be built in inner city areas anymore.
That is not international practice.
It is international practice to build prisons on cities' peripheries with access for prisoners' families to visit them. All of the advice is that the Thornton Hall site is very suitable.
Anglo Irish Bank has suitable premises down on the quays which the Minister could convert.
It will be finished long before Thornton Hall.
I have called on Deputy Naughten. Will Members allow him to put his question?
How much of the ongoing site maintenance costs are for the pruning of the shrubs and trees planted on a substantial acreage of the site? Is it still planned to go ahead with accommodation on the site for deportees and those who have committed immigration law offences? How many of these are currently in the prison system?
Will the Minister make a clear statement to the House on the relocation of St. Patrick's Institution? There were reports it would be relocated at the Thornton Hall site on an interim basis. There is also a proposal for the development of a new facility at Lusk, County Dublin.
A year ago the House convened specially to deal with specific legislation on the matter of Thornton Hall. Can I take it now that the Minister has abandoned the original plans and that the House will have to revisit the legislation? Will new legislation be required for the delayed project?
The project at Oberstown is currently at design stage. The expected tendering process for construction should take place in 2010. Construction is expected to be undertaken in phases with the first phase scheduled to be completed by 2012.
If the new proposals for Thornton Hall are more or less along the lines of the existing plans, we believe new legislation would not be required. There may, however, be a requirement to come back to the House to pass legislation on the re-design. We have a lesser design which takes out some of the ancillary facilities.
It is not envisaged that people awaiting deportation will be housed in Thornton Hall. However, I cannot be definite on what facilities will be on site.
What about the pruning bill?
I do not have that information to hand.
Will the Minister get back to us on it?
That is not a question.
Written Answers follow Adjournment Debate.
