Mr. Justice Bryan McMahon:

I will try to answer as quickly as I can. Starting with the final question, emergency accommodation is not desirable. It is costly and unsuitable and should be addressed as quickly as possible. No one should be in emergency accommodation. It costs €99 a night. If we do the maths for 500 people in accommodation at present, the cost is huge. We know the cost of keeping a person in direct provision is €10,900 a year whereas emergency accommodation costs €99 a night. That should be a priority. Emergency accommodation must be resorted to in extreme cases for short periods but it should not be part of the solution. I suggest that in this situation, given the housing crisis we have, the only way to address it might be for the State to build its own direct provision centres to house people. In those circumstances, emergency accommodation would not be needed.

The other problem on this front is that properties that were available, such as disused hotels and secondary schools, may no longer be available to the State for direct provision centres because they are probably becoming commercially viable again. The builders, developers and hoteliers - Deputy Wallace would know more about this - might state that the economy is now such that they can make a go of these properties commercially. There may not be that many of them available. In these circumstances, the State should consider whether it should build. Father McVerry, the Jesuits and others have a pilot scheme to try to get people out of direct provision. This has been successful but the numbers involved are very small. I am totally against emergency accommodation. It is unsuitable and costly and is a last resort.

With regard to an amnesty for those who have been in the system for more than five years, we tried very much in our discussions to introduce something that was like an amnesty but we did not dare call it an amnesty. The politicians could not live with the word "amnesty" because it is not a prospect that would go down well with the public. To some extent, the word is taboo in the discussion because it will not fly. The administrators tried to do it in another way on an ad hocbasis. We cannot say we will give an amnesty to 4,000 people. The administrators stated they would prioritise cases by examining them quickly and being a bit more lenient or benign if people had been in the system for five years. It had to be done without using the word "amnesty". There is no doubt that people in the system for five years or more deserve compassion and quick treatment.

The Deputy also asked about assessment in the Balseskin centre. This is another result of the accommodation crisis. Balseskin is the location for the initial reception process. It is the first place applicants go when they reach this country. They are medically assessed and legally informed and come into contact with the system. My understanding is that in recent times Balseskin has not been able to take all of the applicants so they are put into emergency accommodation before or during the assessment period. This is unfortunate and should not be allowed. The Department is taking some steps in this regard to expand Balseskin so it will accommodate everyone and enable people to have initial training and an initial legal and medical assessment. This is very important.

The Deputy asked about a statistic that was thrown out that 98% of all recommendations were implemented. I do not believe it. I cannot say the figure is 90%, 85% or 50%. I do not know. Many of the recommendations have been implemented, including some of the important ones. The figure of 98% has been disputed by some of the NGOs. With regard to cooking facilities, the Department states 38% of people have cooking facilities, which means 62% do not have cooking facilities for independent living. I will not challenge a statistic such as the one the Deputy mentioned. It is too general and I do not have enough specific information. I might be able to respond to a more specific statistic but I will give the Deputy this for what it is worth. Some of the NGOs did not agree with the general statement that 98% of the recommendations had been implemented.