Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Social Democrats) | Oireachtas source

I agree with many of the points that have been made with regard to the Department. Indeed, I heard the criticism from our Fianna Fáil colleague here.

This is a whole-of-government issue but the problem is that there is not a whole-of-government response.

I want to concentrate exclusively on the international protection provision. Mr. McCarthy says he cannot tell us the amounts for reasons of commercial sensitivity. However, the same groups of people are getting multiple contracts. A lot of them are connected. They know each other and they are talking to each other. The only people who do not appear to be able to find out how much this costs are the people who are actually paying it. I question this commercial sensitivity from that point of view. It is not acceptable.

There are three particular areas. People concentrate on communication. There is strategy, which is obviously the political piece, and then there are process and communication, which are the Department's responsibility. The process is internal. In the normal course of events, if a Government Department wished to buy something, it would put it out to tender. This is not happening because of the emergency nature of this provision. We now have a highly internal process and we are relying on the Department to put those controls in place because they are out of view. I have concerns about some of this and even the accuracy of the information being used in some circumstances. For example, in my own area, we got a sizeable document last week concerning Ryevale House. This is a protected listed building that would have required planning permission for use. I laugh when I hear about the building in Baggot Street being listed. The Department was told it was a listed building before it happened and that it would require planning permission, but the Department went ahead without it. The report last week showed what we are getting for what we are paying. It showed huge failures, with no consequences for the people who are contracted. We are told that bunk beds should not be used. Did the Department not check before it contracted the service? The report says that there are not enough tables and chairs and that the food is monotonous. An industrial water tanker is permanently stationed outside the building because there is an issue with the water supply. The complaints form is only available from the manager's office. There is a litany of things wrong in this case. We have to start asking what exactly we are getting and when it is not provided, what are the consequences.

A fire certificate was sought nine months after people began to be accommodated in the building. The information in it is totally inaccurate. It states that the building was previously used as bed and breakfast accommodation. That was never the case. An outbuilding was used for Airbnb accommodation on a very informal basis. The building was never used as bed and breakfast accommodation and should not have been exempt from building control regulations. The fire certificate is really important from the point of view of keeping people safe. How is it that things were found eight or nine months after people moved in that meant that it looked like the contract would have to be ceased? Why were these things not found before people were accommodated in the building?

I can cite another case in the west where a facilities manager was appointed. It appears the National Asset Management Agency, NAMA, owns the building, judging from the land registry. The person who is facilities manager formerly owned the building and has two unsatisfied judgments secured by the Revenue Commissioners. The company has no tangible assets and there are 47 people accommodated in the building. I cannot understand how someone like that can be the facilities manager. The last time he appeared here, Mr. McCarthy told me that the control used was tax clearance. I am looking at companies that keep changing directors. From whom is the tax clearance certificate obtained? Does the Department change who it pays the contract to if the company changes during the contract period? When the Department does these inspections, what does it do when it finds non-compliance? I accept that we are in an emergency but very large amounts of money are being thrown at this. What does the Department do when contractors are non-compliant with the contract they have been given?