Matt Carthy
Cavan-Monaghan · Sinn Féin · Ireland
“I move amendment No. 1: To insert after "on 2nd July, 2026": "and: further calls on the Government to provide that the Accommodation Recognition Payment (ARP) scheme shall apply only to: — existing recipients with respect to the beneficiaries of temporary protection currently benefitting from the scheme where those beneficiaries of tempor…”
“10 reads, "In page 5, line 31, after “section 2” to insert “or section 3”." Section 3 criminalises recording, sharing or publishing an intimate image without consent where it seriously interferes with a person's privacy or causes alarm, distress or harm to them.”
“In terms of the legislation, as well as the breadth of the issues covered in the Bill, the other problem is the number of amendments the Minister has introduced on every Stage on new and unrelated matters that just have not been discussed in this House at all and will not get discussed here because of guillotines being applied and the Min…”
“It is not an additional punishment to be included on the register. As has been said, this is just about having a mechanism whereby the constitutional diktat that justice should be done in public is actually made available. This is not an additional punishment. It is actually a protection for others.”
“We must bear in mind that the vast majority of domestic violence offences and abuses never make their way to court. Most of them never result in a complaint. When complaints are made, most of them never see a file being sent to the DPP. Even when that happens, most of them never actually make it to court.”
“She made the point that when a woman, in the majority cases we are talking about women, goes to a Garda station to make a complaint about domestic violence you can virtually bet your life that it is not the first instance of domestic violence that she has encountered.”
The complete record
Every one of 1,467 lines we hold for Matt Carthy, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 10 of 30.
“That is even less clear than any amendment the Opposition has put forward in respect of what exactly will constitute an appropriate location, what the basis will be, or whether there will be provisions in regard to the distance somebody will be expected to travel. We talked about applicants being all over the country, whether they will all be expected to go to Citywest and if it is not happening. The Minister is shaking is head but we do not know because the legislation certainly does not say. In respect of amendment No. 22, I want to put on the record that we support it on the basis that we support the principle of it.”
“Of course, the Minister could decide he is going to accept the principle in respect of people who are identified as victims of trafficking. Then he could go to his officials and say let us figure out how we get this done, in the same way he has done for all the measures he wanted to cater for. In that regard, it is the principle of the amendment I am supporting and I am doing so as somebody who does not necessarily have an issue with the concept of screening centres or the obligation on people who are applicants for international protection of presenting to a screening centre. I have an issue with regard to the legislation, where it simply says that the Minister may designate a premises once he is satisfied the premises is suitable.”
“I made the point that we were nearly being criticised earlier for having too many TDs, but one of the benefits of having a larger number of TDs is the fact that, as tough as it is, I and one member of staff can spend our time going through a piece of justice legislation and, even then, cannot go through all the material that comes from the Minister's Department, to be quite honest about it. However, when you are dealing with other, smaller parties that do not have the same wherewithal, we see individual TDs dealing with multiple portfolios. Our party was in that position before and it becomes much more difficult. The question for me, when we are dealing with an Opposition amendment, is the principle of the amendment.”
“This is a product of the process we were left with because of the approach the Minister has taken to this Bill. We are now 20 minutes away from cut-off. I know the Minister had an issue with the number of TDs who spoke to a particular amendment but, realistically, we have not had a proper engagement on any amendment up until this point or on any section. As the Minister knew, when he insisted he was going to bring it forward on the floor of the Dáil, it is not conducive to having a proper conversation and deliberation. In respect of this amendment, I support it. The Minister can argue that the movers of the amendment should have brought forward a particular definition and clarifications on how the presumption would be made and what the basis of that would be in law.”
“To be clear, such people are entitled to apply and to have their applications adjudicated upon on the same basis as anybody else. If we are serious about having a comprehensive policy and a set of proposals on how to deal with these things, we clearly need to have the relevant information to hand. It would be helpful if the Minister of State, Deputy Brophy, gave us an indication of his position because the chances of our getting to amendment No. 79 before 11 p.m. are fairly slim. We will have no Report Stage in the Dáil, which is bizarre. Either way, it is unacceptable. Could the Minister of State indicate whether, in the Seanad, the Government will be introducing an amendment on this matter?”
“The Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, Deputy McEntee, said at one stage it was up to 90%. That makes for a good headline, the implication being that since the 90% are coming across the Border, there is nothing the State can do about it. When you delve into the statistics, you realise there is no way Deputy McEntee or any other Minister can know the proportion because the Government has been assuming that every single person who presents for international protection but who has not presented at a port or airport has entered the State via the common travel area. However, we know from international experience and from states that compile the relevant figures that there are numerous other categories. Sometimes a person who has permission to be in the State will apply for international protection subsequently.”
“I am referring to the number of people who apply for international protection who will have previously been in the State on another permit, whether it be a student permit, employment permit, other work-related permit, a short-stay tourism visa, a family reunification or dependant permit, or any other immigration permit. It is important that we get that information because it fits in with the conversation we were having last year. Assumptions are made all the time. I repeated on a number of occasions last week that we have had different Ministers saying different things in respect of the proportion of people who enter the State via the common travel area. Some Ministers have referred to a proportion of 80% and others have given other proportions.”
“I want to hear the Minister of State’s response on amendment No. 21 before I speak about it directly. Before that, I want to speak about amendment No. 79, which is grouped with amendment No. 21. I am not entirely sure why it is grouped because it relates to ensuring that in the statistics compiled by the Department, we include information provided by applicants for international protection regarding any prior immigration status or permission while in the State. I found it quite bizarre and very surprising that this information is not kept at source and compiled annually.”
“As I said last week, the pre-legislative scrutiny report was very critical of the capacity of Tusla to deal with the additional workload that will be put on it, yet the Minister of State has not had any answers to any of the questions he has been asked in respect of the capacity of Tusla. In fact, last week, he said he could not answer about Tusla as it is under another Department, but he is happy enough to introduce legislation that is putting responsibilities and will inevitably put an increased workload on Tusla. Will the Minister of State give assurances to the House this week that he was not able to provide last week?”
“How can we have any confidence whatsoever in respect of this legislation that Tusla, a body that many people argue is unfit to do the roles already assigned to it, can do this? A recent report in thejournal.ie stated that a quarter of staff working in special emergency arrangements last year did not have the required documentation to work with vulnerable children. We know that Tusla has referred five emergency childcare providers to the Garda over vetting concerns. These concerns keep coming up. Stories in respect of children in accommodation who are unaccompanied minors in respect of international protection keep coming up, yet we are expected to pass this section and endorse legislation that is adding a substantial amount of workload.”
“Section 15 concerns Eurodac. It is the first section to deal with the Child and Family Agency, Tusla. The Minister of State will know that we have a number of amendments in respect of the ability of Tusla to do the job it is asked to do. Last week or the week before, Judge Conor Fottrell of the Dublin District Court hit out at what he called profiteering by private operators that are providing unregulated placements for the most vulnerable children, describing it as "wrong and shameful". At the time, he was dealing with a 13-year-old boy who remains missing from an unregulated placement. This legislation is putting additional responsibilities onto Tusla. Last week, I asked the Minister of State, on a number of occasions, what additional resources Tusla would be provided with. What additional staff will be put in place?”
“I do not think anybody who values democratic oversight and, in particular, parliamentary oversight would have any issue with this amendment.”
“I am just going to respond to that very briefly. We can only deal with what is in front of us. We are dealing with the International Protection Bill. We are bringing forward an amendment that is aimed at tackling something that has been clearly identified by the Comptroller and Auditor General, and by several journalists who have tried to ascertain some of the scandals. There are many scandals within IPAS contracts in terms of the services being provided to residents, the value for money provided to the State and the profiteering that has been at the heart of that. We have to bring forward measures to deal with that, and that is what Sinn Féin has done. The amendments we have brought forward are very fair and transparent.”
“Has the building a fire certificate? All of this stuff is just basic transparency and accountability and the Minister of State is avoiding it at all costs. I will ask him again to divulge the details of the rate card. If he will not, then he cannot rely on it for an argument against an amendment that is about bringing forward transparency and accountability.”
“No, the Minister of State has not. He did not answer a single one of the questions I put to him there. The question is about what is in the rate card and what the maximum payment within it is. I assume if it is a rate card that there is a maximum and a minimum. What is the maximum the Government is willing to pay? On what basis does it reach that decision? Could the Minister of State please not give us this façade that there is transparency? Transparency is not just knowing how much somebody receives. It is knowing what they are delivering in return. It is important that we know if somebody is in receipt of a public contract worth millions of euro so that we know precisely what they are providing. How many people are they accommodating? Have the premises they provide been inspected? If so, what were the results of that inspection?”
“Deputies Gannon and Coppinger said they did not know what the rate was. I said what Sinn Féin previously set the rate at, but what we have said is that, under this Bill, the Minister would prescribe a maximum amount in regulations and that those regulations would be brought back to this House so that, for the first time ever, we would have a little bit of democratic oversight of how public money is being spent in this area. Is the Minister of State going to give us the details on the record?”
“It has set out in very stark terms in a sample look at the contracts that there were huge issues - overspends and tax returns that were wrong, including VAT returns. I could go through the list again. We have that evidence. We have no evidence to suggest that all of those issues have been sorted out. The Minister was asked multiple times by Sinn Féin to carry out a review of every single IPAS contract. I do not see any reason for the Minister not to do that. Tonight, when we bring forward an amendment that simply says that there will be a maximum payment available under the terms of these contracts and that the Minister will tell people what that is, I would have thought that would be something that would be welcome because it would bring clarity and a little bit of transparency across the board.”
“This is about transparency and recognising what emerged from an absolutely damning report by the Comptroller and Auditor General. I find the Minister of State's arrogance bizarre. There is a sense of the Government is spending the money, never mind how it is actually spent, we would not understand, the little people would not understand how the Government is spending the money, and it is doing all of these great things. The only independent appraisal of Government expenditure in this area was carried out by the Comptroller and Auditor General, an office for which most people would have respect. We could not accuse the Comptroller and Auditor General's office of hyperbole. If it says something, there is an issue.”
“It is so simple that I find it hard to believe that we even have to have a discussion on this or the fact that it is not in place already. The rate card is a secret document. The Minister of State cannot tell us whether the rate card has been breached in the event of additional pressures. Has anyone gone above the rate card? We do not know. The Minister of State will not tell us. What is the difference between the highest and the lowest rate paid according to the rate card? The Minister of State will not tell us why there is a difference between the highest and the lowest rates on the rate card. He should not talk about the rate card as if Sinn Féin has conveniently forgotten that it exists. Sinn Féin has never been told what the rate card comprises. More importantly, the people who pay have never been told either.”
“Will he inform the House what the rates in the rate card are? He will not, because there is damn all transparency in this. He is telling everybody that there is a rate card and we are making great savings, but he will not actually tell people what the rate card says. Seriously. That is his argument for rejecting this amendment, namely, that there is a rate card that is hidden in a filing cabinet somewhere in the Department and that every operator of an IPAS centre knows what it is. The Minister of State knows what it is, but the people who are actually ponying up - the taxpayers – do not know what it is. There is no transparency in respect of this. This is such a simple amendment to ensure that a Minister would set a maximum rate and let the people who are footing the bill know what that maximum rate is.”
“What this amendment is saying is that there would be a maximum amount that the Department would agree to for contracts in a given year and that new contracts would be reviewed annually. At the moment, the system is that a contract is signed for three years, and that is the contract in place. That is why we still have God knows how many situations whereby, as the Minister has acknowledged, there is overspending. It was mentioned that this could impoverish someone, but the only person it could impoverish it would do so by making sure that the people who pay themselves €4.6 million in profits might only be able to pay themselves €3 million or €2 million. They certainly would not be in impoverished by all of that. I invite the Minister of State to come back in, because he mentioned the rate card for 2024. This is a big Government scheme.”
“It is frankly bizarre that Deputies Jim O'Callaghan and Ruth Coppinger are making the exact same argument and saying that we should not talk about an amendment on transparency or community consultation because there are other things further down the amendment list that people would like to speak to. There are lots of issues in this Bill that I would like to spend time deliberating on. I submitted 50 amendments to this Bill across a whole range of policy areas. I would like to deliberate on each of them. In respect of this amendment, to be very clear, the contracts are set out on a per person per day basis. That is how the contracts are set out. The language just reflects that. The Minister of State can confirm that the contracts are usually set out in three-year terms.”
“I will come to that. The Minister of State should not worry. In respect of the debate, the Government decided the format of this debate. Because it tied us into the EU migration and asylum pact, in respect of which there was a deadline, everything else in terms of the consideration of this Bill has been put to one side. We are now in a situation where this debate is being rushed, guillotined and taken on the floor of the Dáil. The rules within that system are being adhered to. We have all been in situations when dealing with guillotined Bills where there have been amendments of ours or parts of the Bill we would like to discuss but we just do not get to that point. Those people who happen to have amendments they want to speak to earlier on cannot be blamed for that. Blame the Government.”
“A couple of years later, we will find out through another report of the Comptroller and Auditor General that somebody else who owned a coffee shop and was barely breaking even has become a multimillionaire on the back of a crisis situation and the inability of the Government to manage public finances effectively. I have moved the amendment. I hope that, in this instance, the Government will say that this is as reasonable as an Opposition amendment gets, that it is about having a little bit of financial and democratic oversight and that it therefore makes absolute sense to incorporate it into the Bill.”
“It would define how the cap should be calculated. It mandates annual reviews and ensures all regulations - this is crucially important for accountability and a bit of democratic oversight - are formally laid before the Oireachtas. What is the alternative? The Minister has basically told us that if it comes to a point where the system is under pressure again, we will be back to the same situation. Who knows what could happen internationally that would result in the number of people seeking international protection growing very quickly in a very short space of time, putting pressure on services? The providers will once again hold all of the cards in the negotiations and, because the Government has rejected any semblance of oversight or transparency, the Department will be doing side deals again.”
“To hell with democratic oversight, to hell with the position of the justice committee that undertook comprehensive pre-legislative scrutiny and to hell with all of those who gave up their time and prepared substantive submissions and came before the committee to give their oral submissions and take questions from the members of the committee who then went to the point of compiling the pre-legislative scrutiny report. This amendment is requiring the Minister to set a daily maximum rate. I am not even trying to tell Minister what it should be. We have set out that the maximum daily rate should be €71, which is the average rate. A total of €71 per bed per night is a good return for anybody within that business if that is what they are doing. It would set out parameters to which the Department would adhere.”
“It did for the taxpayer, not the actual provider. There was a lot of discussion in respect of the pre-legislative scrutiny of the general scheme. The pre-legislative scrutiny report highlighted serious concerns about the escalating and unsustainable cost of IPAS accommodation. It noted that the Bill contains no mechanism whatsoever to cap costs, no strategy to control provider pricing and no reforms to prevent the State from becoming increasingly dependent on expensive private contracts. That was at the pre-legislative scrutiny stage. True to form, Ministers just ignored that aspect of the report from the committee just as they ignored everything else. The only thing that has decided the Government's approach to all of this is an absolute pigheadedness to adhere to the deadline that been set in place by the EU migration and asylum pact.”
“That is nothing to do with the numbers of people coming. Costs are going to increase when we are accommodating more people. That is a given. That is profiteering. I will use term again unapologetically when we have a situation where there is a 70% increase, not in the overall costs but in the cost per bed per day. As the Minister essentially conceded, people saw an opportunity and took full advantage. That money did not result in a better service or better accommodation for the people who are housed there. It certainly did not result in better value for the taxpayer. That money has gone straight into the pockets of those private providers. We can only assume and deduce quite reasonably that it was a 70% increase on profits because the cost base between 2022 and 2024 did not increase by 70%.”
“He certainly will not tell us where that is being paid, which is the crux of the problem we discussed earlier. When we are talking about expenditure of €1.2 billion in a year, there is no capital expenditure in that. That is money that is spent. That in itself was an increase of almost €200 million on the year before. For all the rhetoric of the Minister of improvements, the only thing the Minister and Department can be adjudicated on is one financial year versus the next financial year. There was an increase of €195 million between 2024 and 2025. That represents expenditure of €3.28 million per day. Those are astronomical and amazing figures when we think about it. As a result of the information that we gleamed from the Department, we know that the average rate per bed per day rose by 68%, or almost 740%, between 2022 and 2024.”
“This is not an endorsement of the private provision of IPAS accommodation. It is an acknowledgement and a recognition of the reality. It is bizarre that Members of the Opposition voted against the previous amendment, which called for transparency on contracts. There was a very far-reaching suggestion that by suggesting having transparency in respect of private contracts in some way means that it is an endorsement of private contracts. The amendment sets out that there will be a maximum payment rate per bed per day. That is again to ensure that there are proper checks and balances and oversight. I do not know if the Minister will tell us tonight, but we have not been told up until this point, what the maximum payment paid per bed per night in any accommodation centre is.”
“Such measures would have included the verification of the identity of the directors, partners or the people exercising control, full appraisal of the beneficial ownership and confirmation of things like tax compliance, checks for prior regulatory sanctions and any other checks that the Minister would consider to be necessary. I do not know if the Minister is going to give any clarification at all in respect of these conversations as to any additional measures he is bringing forward that will ensure that we have proper oversight and public oversight in respect of these contracts. Amendment No. 19 provides for a cap on the daily expenditure for international protection accommodation. The Minister's responses to the previous amendment will crystalise for all Members the need for this.”
“(3) The Minister shall review the cap prescribed under subsection (1) at least once in every 12 month period and may amend the cap by regulation following such review. (4) Regulations under this section shall be laid before each House of the Oireachtas as soon as may be after they are made.”. I am surprised in respect of amendment No. 18. It would have been very complementary to this amendment. It called on the Minister to ensure that any company seeking to enter into a contract with the State for the provision of IPAS accommodation or services would be subject to mandatory due diligence and vetting procedures prior to the wording of the contract.”
“I move amendment No. 19: In page 26, after line 30, to insert the following: “ Cap on daily expenditure for international protection accommodation 14. (1) The Minister shall, by regulations made under this Act, prescribe a maximum amount that may be paid per person per day by the State in respect of accommodation provided to applicants for international protection. (2) Regulations made under subsection (1) shall specify— (a) the monetary cap applicable to all forms of accommodation procured or funded by the Minister for the purposes of this Act, (b) the methodology used in determining the cap, including consideration of value for money, regional cost variations, and the avoidance of excessive reliance on emergency or ad hoc accommodation arrangements, and (c) the date on which the cap shall come into operation.”
“I move amendment No. 17: In page 26, after line 30, to insert the following: “Matters concerning minors 14. The best interests of the child shall be primary consideration in the application of this Act, and the Minister shall have due regard to this principle in respect of all matters concerning minors.”.”
“The amendment proposes, for the first time, allowing the Irish people to know where their tax money is being spent, who is benefiting and what the State and international protection applicants are getting in return. The Minister just says he does not see the reason for it, but he has not actually given an argument against this amendment. Therefore, I hope that, even at this stage, there might be a change of heart to let people know that we are going to provide a bit of transparency in this regard. It is the very least that people should expect when we are spending so much money, and when the Minister is overseeing such a dysfunctional system. At the very minimum, if we are spending €1.2 billion, people should have a right to know exactly how that is being spent and who is benefiting.”
“It is €1.2 billion spent last year and over €3.2 million every single day, predominantly on private contracts. To answer Deputies Gannon and Kelly, I absolutely believe we should not only move towards State-provided accommodation but we should have been there a lot sooner than now. None of that negates anything I said earlier about community engagement for those places, by the way. I am on the same page. However, even the Minister, in the most optimistic scenario, outlines the current proposal as a wish to get to 14,000 in State-provided accommodation. Even with those figures, there is a very high chance there will be some need for private contracts, given the current trajectory. Let us not try to find excuses not to support what are very important and clearly set out amendments.”
“I am after saying that we got detail from the Comptroller and Auditor General and from journalists. None of the really obscene scandals we have seen in respect of IPAS accommodation contracts were actually divulged by the Minister's contract. The Minister tells us that in the second half of this year alone, through negotiations, he saved €80 million, and he said that without blushing. He should be embarrassed for his predecessor or whoever negotiated the original contracts. What he is saying is that for those contracts alone, we overpaid the equivalent of €80 million for a six-month period. How long were those contracts in place? Did we actually overpay over the past three or four years for those contracts? Will the Minister divulge that? I think that is in the public interest.”
“That is what he said. Words to that effect. The Minister does not publish the beneficial owners of companies. He does not let us know whether there is a number of companies who are perhaps getting less than €20,000 per annum that could be owned by the same people. Crucially, what the Minister does not divulge is that while he tells us how much the company is getting paid, he does not tell us what we are actually getting in return and how many people individual companies are providing accommodation for and where they are providing it. He does not tell us if complaints have been made against any accommodation by residents or anybody else. He gives us the macro figures but he does not actually give us the detail. The Minister says it is because of his information that we have all the detail we have here.”
“In fact, I asked the Minister in committee if he would ensure that the beneficial owners of a company in receipt of potentially millions of euro in State money would be divulged to the public. He said that is not the way this Government does business.”
“The problem is that the facts do not back up what he is saying. He has spoken a number of times tonight about how he has increased State-provided accommodation. That was through the purchase of one centre. Let us be absolutely clear about it. It did not actually increase the capacity at all because it was a centre already in use at Citywest. I would argue that the way in which that purchase was handled vis-à-vis the local community and indeed the residents leaves a lot to be desired in respect of the potential success for future purchases. If anyone was listening to the Minister, you would actually think, "Jesus, that is a lot of information". You get to know exactly how much someone is getting in contracts if it is over €20,000 but you do not actually get to know how much somebody is getting. You get to know what a company is getting.”
“The notion of commercial sensitivity is a veil behind which the Government hides its huge level of squandering of public money. We see this across public services. There is nobody seeking accommodation for international protection other than the Department of justice. It is not as if it is in competition with somebody else. The only reason the Minister is still hiding a lot of the detail is that there are some companies which are absolutely milking it in terms of the price they are getting paid per bed per day and the stipulations they have to adhere to regarding the quality of the accommodation or whether they are required to have the accommodation completely filled on an ongoing basis. I hope to have the support of the Minister and the House for the amendment.”
“They included overpayments, incorrect VAT charges, poor invoice verification, inadequate due diligence on providers and weak monitoring of accommodation standards. That report concluded that financial controls were insufficient and the system allowed significant compliance failures and potential profiteering. This amendment might not be able to address every inadequacy in every contract, but at least we will be able to say to the people that there will be a little bit of transparency and then they can adjudicate the success, or otherwise, of the Minister of the day. Again, I look forward to seeing how the Minister argues against supporting this amendment. There is nothing in the amendment that anybody should be afraid of.”
“We did not find any of this out because of the Minister's Department or because he divulged it. We found that out because of journalists doing their job and informing the public. The lack of transparency has allowed what I have described again and again as massive profiteering. The Minister told this House that we were in a very difficult situation and if someone came forward with an offer of property, they held all the cards, but it is not too bad now because the numbers have reduced. He is essentially telling us is that if the numbers increase again substantially, we are going to be back to square one and we will see the exact same thing happen again. I want to remind Members of some of the weaknesses the C and AG found.”
“I refer to the cases I mentioned that the C and AG highlighted. His office analysed just a small sample size of IPAS contracts and found huge issues in terms of due diligence and overcharging. The Government was overcharged by people who were in receipt of these contracts. It is bizarre that the C and AG found such blatant wastage of public money in a small sample, but nothing has been done. There has not been a comprehensive analysis of every contract, so we can only assume that if we extrapolate that across the sector, there is a whole range of other issues. The cases that I mentioned have caused uproar in terms of the expenditure of public money on contracts with people who were not suitable as they had no track record or had dubious backgrounds.”
“One beneficiary of a lucrative IPAS contract was subsequently named in CAB documents as being involved in gangland crime. We found out that the quality of the accommodation being provided was wholly unsuitable. However, when we put questions about it to the Minister, he told us that it was all sorted and would not happen today, but we have no way of knowing any of that. That is what this amendment is about because ultimately this is public money. It is being spent on the mechanism that this Government has decided is going to be used to meet its obligations under international law to provide accommodation for people seeking international protection. Some €1.2 billion was spent last year - over €3.2 million every day - and there is no transparency whatsoever. Sinn Féin is calling for every IPAS contract to be reviewed.”
“The Comptroller and Auditor General has found an absolute disregard for the use of public money, and there is no sense that anybody is being held accountable for it. The Minister has repeated a couple of times during this debate that he has spoken to Deputies about IPAS contracts on a number of occasions. However, he has not answered any questions about any specific contracts because it is all being done behind a veil of secrecy. One company that had been operating as a coffee shop made profits of €2,992 one year. That was the annual profit for the whole company. It segued into international protection accommodation and within a year its two directors were paying themselves €4.6 million in wages. Nobody seemed to be bothered about it.”
“We have seen countless examples where contracts have been entered into in respect of properties, people have been residing in those properties for years in some cases and then it turns out there is no fire certificate never mind any other building regulations being complied with. One scenario involved an IPAS centre that had been operating for a couple of years but that did not even have running water. It had to bring in water in tanks on a daily basis. It is not just Sinn Féin that is saying this. In his annual report last year, the Comptroller and Auditor General was as scathing as I have ever seen him, and I am a former member of the Committee of Public Accounts. His report confirmed people's worst fears about the lack of due diligence and overcharging.”
“A small number of private operators have made millions off the back of the Government's dysfunctional approach. There has been no transparency regarding what qualifies certain individuals to get contracts like this. Across the country, we have seen people who are predominantly failed businessmen all of sudden become millionaires because they hit the jackpot and managed to get a couple of accommodation contracts. Every other business operation these people touched turned to dust, but we entrusted them with the care of human beings with no analysis of whether they were qualified or what made them qualified.”
“I do not know why or how any such statement should or could be controversial. The Minister has essentially told the House that the owners of properties essentially held all the cards in terms of the contract negotiations that took place. When discussing the previous amendment, we talked about a lot of the concerns, frustration and anger within many communities. Nothing has intensified that anger more than the reality that while communities have been completely cut out of the process with no engagement whatsoever - and the Minister's position on the previous amendment is that this will basically continue - the profits some companies have made have been obscene. What is worse is the fact that the conditions in which many international protection applicants have been living are unacceptable.”
“It is fairly simple and states that the Minister shall publish all contracts, subcontracts, financial schedules, performance reports and compliance assessments relating to accommodation or services provided to international protection applicants. It also states that publication should take place no later than 30 days after the signing of any relevant document and that information may be withheld only where strictly necessary to protect commercially sensitive material as defined by regulation and that such withholding must be justified in writing. The Minister may not like this, but any discussion of Ireland's international protection system is pointless unless we have a conversation about the massive profiteering that has evolved from the provision of IPAS accommodation.”