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

There are a range of different issues here. There are different tables. There are some items on one table that are not on the other and I am confused about that. Obviously I need to go through it further but, for example, nowhere in Kildare is listed in any of those tables except the ones where the cost is associated. I do not know why that would be the case when they are in this table and I know they have been there for some time. My first question concerns why the table is not complete. It is quite useful information, including the capacity in the various categories such as hotels, hostels, bed and breakfast accommodation, guesthouses and so on and the spread across the country. There will always be a cost and I do not think any of us wants to see people not accommodated. That should go without saying. We would be looking at it from the point of view of value for money. It might be that we have to get more information. Different locations will have different amounts because there will be places in the country that are more expensive from the point of view of a hotel, but would it make more sense to purchase buildings rather than use long-term rentals?

The other thing that is particularly striking about appendix 2 is that some of it is for 28 days. That is fine; that is the way the contract is structured. Another is 31 days. Matching that against capacity, it seems like the same amount every month. If the capacity changes, is the same amount paid? For example, if the facility can accommodate 50 people, is payment made for 50 people if 40 people are in it? I would like to see a little bit more on the structure of the contracts.

It was unsatisfactory when we had the Department in previously to discuss due diligence. How the Department sources accommodation is a confidential process. It appears that the Department sources it from the point of view of people coming forward with accommodation as opposed to the Department or the Government going out and looking at buildings that might be suitable or made suitable. In that case, the Department becomes a cost-taker. I am not sure that is a great way of dealing with this. There are issues around the lack of consistency across the various tables and also the information we have. We need further information. When departmental officials were in and I asked them the question, it seemed the only issue is that they are tax compliant. There are other issues, including several here. For example, it states it does not include security. Why would they not give us the information if there is a cost for security? Why can we not have at least full transparency on actual costs? We need to do things better in terms of value for money, but not only that. I am aware of one particular location where they tankered in water. I am sure the Department is paying for a fully functioning building, and that building is not. It is important that we can interrogate that.

Those are some of the points that we need further information on.