Motion on Prison Building Programme - 29th May 2008

Motion on Prison Building Programme - 29th May 2008
Senator David Norris: I welcome the Minister of State to the House and, given my experience
of him in the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs where he showed himself to clear-sighted,
forthright and open to argument, I am glad he is in charge of these proposals. He is prepared
to take risks from time to time.
I endorse what has been said by my colleagues, particularly Senator Ivana Bacik, about the
location and development of this site. Of course one welcomes the end to slopping out, an
appalling and barbarous procedure that was against the interests of inmates. I agree with her
that we must look carefully at the issue of women prisoners.
I will put down an amendment to the Broadcasting Bill to ensure that people who fail to pay
the television licence fee will not be subject to prison terms. There was recently a case of a
young single mother in Cork who was jailed for non-payment of the television licence fee and
her son was traumatised as a result. This is completely inappropriate. The more prisons we
build, the more likely we are to fill them. Prison is an inappropriate treatment for many prisoners,
not just women but men also.
The topic I wish to raise, the relocation of the Central Mental Hospital to the Thornton Hall
site, is related to this subject and I propose to deal with it because it is indicated that a site has
been reserved on the map. A very important report on the Central Mental Hospital round
table meeting, “Patients not Prisoners”, was published on Tuesday this week. The Central
Mental Hospital’s carers group, the Irish Mental Health Coalition, Schizophrenia Ireland and
a number of other groups were involved. It is important that we examine this aspect of the
development of the Thornton Hall site because, at this stage, no clear decision that cannot be
reversed has been taken. The decision can be reversed and the Minister of State is the right
person to do so.
From a political point of view the relocation of the Central Mental Hospital to Thornton
Hall conflicts with the Government’s excellent statements in its policy document, “A Vision
for Change”. There it is stated that the Central Mental Hospital should be replaced or remodelled
to allow the provision of care and treatment in a modern, up to date and humane setting.
This flows from inspections carried out by the Council of Europe committee for the prevention
of cruel and inhuman treatment and torture. The committee visited Dundrum in 1998, 2002
and 2006 and on foot of its report a decision was made that the facilities there were inadequate.
It is many years since I visited a patient in Dundrum and on that occasion the conditions
were appalling. I am glad that they have altered and that there is now a full-fledged therapeutic
environment, although nobody doubts that the facilities must be updated. However, the relocation
to Thornton Hall will be damaging because there is a possibility of contamination and
stigmatisation by osmosis. I do not wish to further stigmatise the prisoners but it is clear that
patients in the Central Mental Hospital are not prisoners; they are patients and have been
deemed as such.
In the existing situation, while the buildings are inappropriate, the location is as good as one
can get. There is access on foot from the city centre and the surrounding suburbs and also by
rail, bus, taxi and Luas. The current location has the works in this regard. In these circumstances
we must consider not only patients but also families and visitors. The Dundrum facility has
existed for 150 years and the local community has absorbed it so there will be no great impact
by retaining and redeveloping it. However, there could be an impact resulting from the
Thornton Hall location as one does not know what the attitude of the surrounding community
might be.
If the hospital is redeveloped on the Thornton Hall site the patients will face increased
isolation. Low security patients in Dundrum are already permitted to take part in various
courses, including college and university courses, and they have access to rehabilitative facilities
in the city. This is important. A distinguished Australian expert in this area concluded that
the therapeutic culture enshrined in Dundrum could be seriously undermined by a move to
Thornton Hall.
There is a strong economic argument for opposing the move. Mr. Jim Power, a significant
economic commentator, indicated that the proposed relocation is a worst case scenario that
looked as though it had been planned on the back of an envelope. He said there is a better
economic case for redeveloping the facility in Dundrum. There is a 34 acre site there of which
14 acres could be sold to generate around \140 million. This would more than pay for the
development of the hospital, leaving 20 acres for the hospital to be redeveloped; effectively a
greenfield site.
One of the Minister of State’s colleagues on the radio yesterday said we could not carry out
both projects together. Why not? The Minister for Health and Children, who is not unknown
to the Minister of State, is a passionate advocate of co-location. It is not beyond the wit of man
or woman to build while maintaining existing facilities — there would, after all, be a 20 acre
site. It would be possible to co-locate a building site and hospital and it would be positive. Such
a project would be revenue neutral and a small profit might even be made. There would
continue to be a land bank there.
The Irish Human Rights Commission, which was appointed by the Government, said it is
gravely concerned at what it calls a “highly inappropriate proposal”. The Government must
listen to organisations of this calibre that makes such statements. There is nothing from the
Government to support the case for the decision. It has yet to produce a legally required costbenefit
analysis of the options.
There is a series of reasons the hospital should not be moved. It is against the Government’s
policy. There has been no consultation whatever so far with the users and their families. I met
families of patients in Dundrum before Christmas, just last week and within recent days, and
they are passionate about the issue. I am using this opportunity to respectfully ask the Government
to reconsider the decision in the light of its own policies and from the point of view of
convenience for public transport, access to local facilities and the general location. A community
has been built up around the hospital. Staff live locally and patients feel safe going to
local shops.
I will end by quoting one of the people who briefed me on this. She asked her son what he
thought of the Central Mental Hospital going to Thornton Hall and his reply was that people
would think the patients were prisoners, not people with mental illness, and that he would be
too afraid to go outside as the proposed site is in the middle of nowhere. The Minister of State
is the appropriate person to start the process of re-examining this question before facts emerge
from the situation on the ground.