Oireachtas Joint and Select Committees

Thursday, 21 March 2013

Public Accounts Committee

2011 Annual Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General and Appropriation Accounts
Vote 13 - Office of the Chief State Solicitor
Vote 19 - Justice and Equality
Chapter 15: Lease of Accommodation for a Probation Service Project

Mr. Brian Purcell (Secretary General, Department of Justice and Equality) and Ms Eileen Creedon (Chief State Solicitor) called and examined.

10:10 am

Photo of John McGuinnessJohn McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Item No. 7 on the agenda is the 2011 annual report of the Comptroller and Auditor General and appropriation accounts, Vote 13, Office of the Chief State Solicitor, Vote 19, Justice and Equality, and Chapter 15, lease of accommodation for a Probation Service project.

Before we begin I ask members, witnesses and those in the Public Gallery to turn off all mobile phones as they interfere with the sound quality and transmission of the proceedings.

By virtue of section 17(2)(l) of the Defamation Act 2009, witnesses are protected by absolute privilege in respect of the evidence they are to give this committee. If a witness is directed by the committee to cease giving evidence in relation to a particular matter and the witness continues to so do, the witness is entitled thereafter only to a qualified privilege in respect of his or her evidence. Witnesses are directed that only evidence connected with the subject matter of these proceedings is to be given and are asked to respect the parliamentary practice to the effect that, where possible, they should not criticise nor make charges against any person or persons or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable. Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the House or an official by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. Members are reminded of the provisions within Standing Order 163 that the committee shall refrain from inquiring into the merits of a policy or policies of the Government or a Minister of the Government or the merits of the objectives of such policies.

I welcome Mr. Brian Purcell, Secretary General of the Department of Justice and Equality, and invite him to introduce his officials.

Mr. Brian Purcell:

I am accompanied by Mr. Seamus Clifford, Ms Deirdre O'Keeffe and Mr. Vivian Geiran, director of the Probation Service.

Photo of John McGuinnessJohn McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome Ms Eileen Creedon, Chief State Solicitor. I invite her to introduce her officials.

Ms Eileen Creedon:

I am accompanied by Mr. Brian Byrne, assistant chief State solicitor, Mr. Owen Wilson, assistant chief State solicitor, and Mr. Michael Fallon, head of administration in my office.

Photo of John McGuinnessJohn McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the officials from the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform.

Mr. Dermot Quigley:

I am accompanied by Mr. Ronan Gallagher. We will deal with the Votes.

Photo of John McGuinnessJohn McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I invite the Comptroller and Auditor General to present his statement.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy:

The appropriation account for the Vote for the Department of Justice and Equality recorded a gross expenditure of just over €400 million in 2011. Salaries accounted for over 36% of current expenditure, with, at the end of the year, approximately 2,400 whole-time equivalent staff in the Department and its related offices. The justice Vote includes more than 60 individual subheads. As well as the administrative costs of the Department, the subheads relate to expenditure on areas such as commissions and special inquiries, legal aid, immigration and asylum, the Probation Service, equality, integration and disability, charities, the Irish Youth Justice Service and the Forensic Science Laboratory. The Vote also includes funding for a range of services including the Office of the Data Protection Commissioner, the Criminal Assets Bureau and the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission.

A Supplementary Estimate was passed for Vote 19 in 2011. As shown in the appropriation account, an additional €10 million was provided for criminal legal aid, on top of the original Estimate of €47.6 million. The outturn for the year was just over €56 million. This is on a par with 2010 expenditure. An additional €5.6 million was also provided in 2011 for the Irish Naturalisation and Immigration Service. An additional €1.2 million was provided for commissions and inquiries. The increases in these subheads were offset by reductions in the Estimate provisions for a range of services, including the Irish Youth Justice Service, the Office of the State Pathologist and the Criminal Assets Bureau.

The appropriation account for Vote 13, Office of the Chief State Solicitor, is also before the committee today. The function of the Office of the Chief State Solicitor is to provide legal services to the Attorney General, Departments and offices and State agencies. In 2011, the office recorded gross expenditure of €32.9 million. Of this, €14.4 million was spent on salaries and €15.8 million was allocated for the payment of fees to counsel and general law expenses.

Chapter 15 concerns the circumstances around the lease of a premises for a Probation Service project that gave rise to a situation in which no benefit was received despite a €2 million outlay. The Department funds 46 community-based organisations across the State to develop and deliver services to adult offenders in their communities. One of these is the Bridge project, which has operated in the Dublin north inner city area for more than 15 years. The project aims to achieve community reintegration of male offenders, improve their job skills and generally assist in increasing community safety.

The programme is delivered by a multidisciplinary team, led by Probation Service staff.

The Probation Service had concerns about the suitability of the premises used by the project and began to seek alternative accommodation in 2006. In June 2008, the Probation Service leased premises located in a largely residential building in Wolfe Tone Street, Dublin, for use by the project. The Office of the Chief State Solicitor negotiated the lease with the owner of the premises on behalf of the Department. Substantial fitting out was required to meet the needs of the project. While the fitting out work was ongoing, questions were raised about compliance with planning regulations of the development and the intended use. There was considerable local and resident opposition to the Bridge Project moving into the premises. The planning enforcement office of Dublin City Council issued a warning letter to the Bridge Project in March 2010, stating that planning permission granted in 2001 for a change of use of the premises to commercial use had expired in January 2006. The Department has stated that it was informed - during a meeting with the planning enforcement office - that planning permission did not revert to the previous uses once the permission for commercial office use had expired. Consequently, the Department would need to apply for planning permission for any type of use of the premises. Given local opposition to the Bridge Project's accommodation in the premises, permission for a use of that kind would be difficult to secure.

The Department has incurred expenditure in respect of the rental and fitting out of the premises amounting to over €2 million, without any benefit having been received. As a result, the Bridge Project continued in accommodation of a poor standard until 2012, when it was forced to leave said accommodation due to health and safety risks. This was almost six years since the search for alternative premises had commenced. When my report was being finalised, the project was accommodated under short-term arrangements. The Accounting Officer for the Department will be able to provide an update for the committee on the current situation relating to the project. The Department placed a reliance on the Office of the Chief State Solicitor to provide legal advice in respect of negotiation of the lease and to carry out the necessary checks, including those relating to planning. In the circumstances, it was reasonable for the Department to expect that non-compliance of the premises with planning requirements would have been identified and brought to its attention before the lease was signed.

The Chief State Solicitor has pointed out that her office followed the established conveyancing procedure of relying on a lessor to provide an architect's opinion on compliance with planning requirements. An opinion was provided, in the required format, by a registered person and the Office of the Chief State Solicitor was entitled to rely on this in accordance with recommended Law Society practice. Nevertheless, the statutory period to act on a change of use had expired and the basis on which a change of use would be recognised by the planning authorities was specifically referred to in correspondence between the office and the legal representative of the property owners during the lease negotiations. Furthermore, the nature of the Department's intended use of the premises and the location of the premises in an otherwise residential complex increased the likelihood of objections in the event that there was any doubt as to planning compliance.

I recommended that the Office of the Chief State Solicitor should review its risk assessment in respect of planning compliance and property acquisitions and the practice of reliance on architects' opinions. I also recommended that it would consider the need for additional assurance procedures where compliance risks are evident. The Chief State Solicitor did not agree with that recommendation and will be able to outline her reasoning in that regard to the committee.

10:20 am

Photo of John McGuinnessJohn McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Mr. McCarthy and call on Mr. Purcell to make his opening statement.

Mr. Brian Purcell:

I propose to keep my opening remarks brief in the interests of making the best use of members' time. My remit as Accounting Officer is very broad. There are in the region of 60 subheads in the justice Vote, covering a range of offices and agencies across the criminal justice sector, including the areas of immigration, commissions, equality and disability. I am also the Accounting Officer for the prisons Vote.

In my role as Accounting Officer, I acknowledge the contribution of the Department's audit committee in ensuring that there is a strong system of internal controls in place. The committee is comprised of four external members and one departmental representative. The chair is external and independent of the Department. The committee is supported by an internal audit unit. This unit functions through its audit work programme and provides assurance that there are effective financial and other controls in place. In 2011, 24 audit reports were completed and the corresponding figure in 2012 was 26. In a Department with as wide a remit as that of the Department of Justice and Equality, which comprises over 60 individual subheads and a large number of offices and agencies, such audit assurance is crucially important to me in my role as Accounting Officer. In addition, given the range and breadth of offices and agencies under the justice Vote, it is very important to have a strong governance structure in place. This is not to say that we want to stifle or restrict in any way the functions of any of the offices and agencies a number of which are established on a statutory basis. However, I firmly believe that strong oversight is important to ensure the highest standards of financial control and that value for money is obtained from the expenditure in the justice and equality Vote. This is something I have continued to build on since my appointment as Secretary General in August 2011.

A key feature of the governance structure within the Department is that each office and agency attached to the justice and equality Vote, while operating according to its legislative status and its own business plan and objectives, is accountable to the central Department in terms of budgets and expenditure. In short, with just a couple of exceptions, all the expenditure in the justice and equality Vote is managed through a central accounting system in the Department's financial services centre in Killarney. The same rules and regulations apply to procurement and expenditure across the Department, irrespective of the office or agency involved.

Turning specifically to the report of the Comptroller and Auditor General in respect of the lease of accommodation for a Probation Service project in Wolfe Tone Street, Dublin, I have found it very frustrating that a building which was acquired under a 25-year lease and fitted out to the standard required for use by the Probation Service cannot now be used for the purpose intended. However, I have been advised by the Attorney General's office that this matter remains live and in dispute and that proceedings have now issued in this case. I have also been advised that notwithstanding the publication of chapter 15 of the Comptroller General's annual report for 2011, it is entirely foreseeable that any further discussion of, or comment on, the facts of this matter as set out in that chapter could, in effect, reveal our hand to the other parties in the proceedings, thereby prejudicing the prospect of the State successfully recovering all the damages it is seeking. I will, of course, try to answer any questions raised by the committee within these constraints.

Photo of John McGuinnessJohn McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Mr. Purcell. May we publish his statement?

Mr. Brian Purcell:

Yes.

Photo of John McGuinnessJohn McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Mr. Purcell and call on Ms Creedon to make her opening statement.

Ms Eileen Creedon:

I will try to be brief. If I exceed my allotted time, perhaps the Chairman will let me know. I am pleased to be able to attend before this committee to discuss the 2011 appropriation account in respect of Vote 13, Office of the Chief State Solicitor, and chapter 15 of the Comptroller and Auditor General's report for 2011. This is my first time to appear before the committee since my appointment as Chief State Solicitor just over a year ago. As requested, I have forwarded a briefing note which sets out the main developments and challenges facing the office and which includes details of expenditure in 2012 and the current position with the Bridge Project, the subject matter of chapter 15.

The status of the lease - the subject matter of chapter 15 - remains in dispute between the Department of Justice and Equality, the landlord-receiver and the architect. I cannot discuss the case before the committee and in that regard I wish to bring its attention to section 3(5) of the Committees of the Houses of the Oireachtas (Compellability, Privileges and Immunities of Witnesses) Act 1997. Proceedings have now issued in this case and I would draw the committee's attention to section 5 of the same Act.

The Comptroller and Auditor General, in his report of 2011, made a recommendation to the Office of the Chief State Solicitor. As this recommendation was made in the context of the Comptroller and Auditor General's examination of the issues outlined in the chapter, I am constrained in any response I can give at this time. I wish to assure the committee that risk assessment is a matter which is taken with the utmost seriousness by me and my office. A full response to the recommendation of the Comptroller and Auditor General will be made at the conclusion of this case. The outcome of this case will inform that response.

The committee may be already aware that my office is a constituent part of the Office of the Attorney General and that it provides solicitor services within that office and to Government Departments and offices. The Office of the Chief State Solicitor has a wide remit including, but not limited to, civil litigation in all courts - including the European Court of Justice - and the provision of solicitor service in the areas of conveyancing and property law, Government contracts and public procurement issues for an array of Civil Service clients. Many matters are high profile, sensitive, capable of attracting publicity and sometimes can involve emergency applications to court, strict time limits and complex issues of law. It should be noted that my office does not provide a solicitor service for the Director of Public Prosecutions in the prosecution of offences.

As set out in more detail in my briefing document, it must be noted that my office must meet a number of challenges. In summary, it has to balance the need to operate within the constraints of reduced resources and budget while ensuring that the legal service it is providing is of the highest standard as required by Government and is achieving maximum value for money.

We need to attract and retain high calibre staff and ensure that they have the required resources to do their work to the highest standard while continuing to address the need to achieve further savings. I set out in my statement the administrative budget subheads, on which I can elaborate if necessary, but for the sake of brevity I will move on to counsel fees.

Expenditure on fees to counsel amounted to 31.2% of overall expenditure from the Vote in 2011. I should point out that expenditure in this area depends on the level of activity in the courts and is therefore very difficult to forecast accurately. There are significant controls in place to manage expenditure on fees paid to counsel. There are procedures previously agreed with the Department of Finance governing payment of counsels’ fees. Department of Public Expenditure and Reform sanction is required for any brief fee in excess of €9,525. The management of expenditure on counsels’ fees is a key activity for the Chief State Solicitor’s office. These are fees payable to counsel representing the Departments and offices in litigation before the courts and other tribunals and the European Court of Justice. They also include fees payable for the provision of legal advice for the State, whether sought for the Attorney General’s office or for client Departments. The committee might be interested to hear that the office achieved an overall reduction of 46% when comparing the outturn for 2012 with that of 2008.

Subhead C deals with general law expenses. This subhead provides for expenditure on items such as expert witnesses and stenographers fees as well as payments made under the Attorney General’s scheme. Costs incurred accounted for 16.8% of total expenditure. The objective of the Attorney General’s scheme is to provide legal representation in certain types of proceedings to persons who are unable to pay for such representation and where other forms of legal aid are not available. The administration of the scheme was transferred to the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform in 2007 with the Chief State Solicitor's office, CSSO, still accountable for the expenditure. The Legal Aid Board took over responsibility for the administration of the scheme from the Department on 1 June 2012. As and from 1 January 2013, the Legal Aid Board has assumed responsibility for funding the scheme, which has been renamed the legal aid – custody issues scheme. The cost borne by the office in 2011 for the Attorney General’s scheme was €4.08 million. The cost for 2012 was €3.5 million.

Thank you, Chairman, for allowing me the opportunity to make this short statement. I will do my best to assist you and your colleagues in your considerations. In the event that I do not have the information available to me today, I will do my best to provide any outstanding material within two weeks.

10:30 am

Photo of John McGuinnessJohn McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Ms Creedon. Could we publish the statement?

Ms Eileen Creedon:

Yes, you may.

Photo of John McGuinnessJohn McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Before I call on Deputy Donohoe I wish to make a comment. On Ms Creedon's comment on chapter 15, the committee has taken legal advice from the parliamentary legal adviser and our advice is that the matter is properly before the committee and therefore in accordance with Standing Order 163 of Dáil Éireann and the mandate given to the committee that it is up to us to examine the reports of the Comptroller and Auditor General with the Accounting Officer. In this case, as outlined in the report of the Comptroller and Auditor General, the committee must examine how the State has entered a lease, paid out €2 million to date and yet has derived no benefit from the expenditure. Our job is to follow this by way of examination with the Accounting Officer as there is ineffective expenditure of public money. This is our job and we would be failing in our mandate if we did not thoroughly examine the issue.

An examination of the issue potentially in a number of years' time is not an option for the committee. My understanding from reading the Comptroller and Auditor General's report is that the State has tried to get out of the lease and that this has been refused. There is a potential bill to the State of between €4 million to €5 million. The likelihood of a court case does not mean that the PAC cannot deal with the issue today. I refer again to the legal advice given to us by the parliamentary legal adviser. I also note from Mr. Purcell's opening remarks that he is prepared, within the constraints outlined, to answer as many questions as he can. Understanding the balance that has to be struck between the position of the office and its dealings with the landlord and the work this committee has to undertake, it is our intention this morning to pursue the matter in public session.

Ms Eileen Creedon:

Thank you, Chairman. I would like to say that under no circumstances is it my intention to in any way be unhelpful to the committee or to obstruct its work. I am fully cognisant of the function, importance and duty of the committee to examine matters of this kind. I am also fully cognisant of the right of the committee and the taxpayer to examine issues where taxpayers' money may be seen to be at a loss or misspent in any way. I fully appreciate that.

As the committee members might be aware, litigation has issued in this case and as Chief State Solicitor I am responsible for the carriage of the case. In keeping my focus on value for the taxpayer and recovering in this case, my primary focus is the safe carriage of the proceedings through the courts. I am conscious that if I discuss the matter in public or otherwise and prejudice those proceedings, I am therefore prejudicing the likelihood of making a recovery for the taxpayer in this case. That is the purpose and function of the provisions in the 1997 Act to which I have referred. It is a long established principle that officers of the Attorney General's office, of which I am one, confine their comments to matters touching on the administration of the office for that reason. I fully accept that the recommendation made by the Comptroller and Auditor General to me in terms of risk management touches on the administration of the office. I fully accept that I need to take on board those recommendations and fully respond to them. I have no difficulty at all with that. My only difficulty with the discussion of the case, as I have set out in previous correspondence to the committee, is the timing of it and the fact that it could, without any shadow of a doubt, prejudice the chances of us successfully pursuing the litigation to make a recovery.

Mr. Brian Purcell:

Thank you, Chairman. As I said earlier, we have a certain difficulty with the matter as the case is still live and is in dispute with proceedings having issued. Like the Chief State Solicitor, I wish to co-operate in every way possible with the committee. We can answer some questions within the constraints I have outlined. Would you, Chairman, consider it appropriate for us to deal with the general Vote issues and then go into private session to deal with the issues relating to chapter 15? That could facilitate a better discussion. As the Chief State Solicitor has outlined, there would be difficulties. As I said in the opening statement, it would certainly be foreseeable that a discussion on the matter might reveal our hand in a way that could prejudice the State's ability to successfully prosecute the case. I accept the principal remit of the committee is to account for public expenditure. I am frustrated at the situation. It was one of the first things that was dropped on my desk when I was appointed as Secretary General in the Department. I am acutely aware of the fact that we are at a point now where proceedings have issued and this is a matter of concern because it will be contested and we do not want to do anything that would jeopardise our case.

Photo of John McGuinnessJohn McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I accept what Ms Creedon has stated and what was outlined by Mr. Purcell. There is no difficulty in dealing with the general Vote and the other matters separate from chapter 15. I am sure members will agree with that. In the context of chapter 15, the report itself is a public document. The facts are contained in a public document and I am sure that the content of a public document can be discussed to a point. The suggestion to use Standing Order 163 to facilitate a private discussion can be called upon as we deal with the issue. From the point of view of what is contained in the chapter, we can examine it publicly to the point where the witnesses feel it is necessary to go into private session. We can deal with the Vote separately and then deal with chapter 15 and we can decide to go into private session for the parts of the discussion that are sensitive in terms of the case the office is taking. We share the view that we must protect taxpayers' money, whether it is the case that money has been spent with poor efficiency or where the State has been left exposed. The Committee of Public Accounts does not want to do that but we have a job to do.

We will deal with the general Vote first and the chapter thereafter. Mr. Purcell can then intervene and we can go into private session as he wishes.

10:40 am

Mr. Brian Purcell:

Thank you, Chairman.

Photo of John McGuinnessJohn McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Deputy Paschal Donohoe will deal with the general Vote.

Photo of Paschal DonohoePaschal Donohoe (Dublin Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will reserve my comments on chapter 15 until we reach the appropriate point in the meeting. I welcome the witnesses and thank them for the material supplied and their work in the Department and the Chief State Solicitor's office.

The three areas of the Vote on which I want to focus my questioning are the cost of the citizenship and asylum seeking application process, free legal aid and the future cost of tribunals. I will begin by referring the witnesses to the page in the 2011 Appropriation Accounts which lays out the figures for the Estimate provision, the outturn and the 2010 outturn. Tables D1, D2 and D3 set out the original Estimate for 2011, the outturn and the 2010 outturn. There is a supplementary figure included for the operation of the Irish Naturalisation and Immigration Service, INIS, of €5.6 million. Will Mr. Purcell explain to the committee the reason that Supplementary Estimate was necessary and for what the money was used?

Mr. Brian Purcell:

It was mainly to cover legal expenses in the operation of the INIS.

Photo of Paschal DonohoePaschal Donohoe (Dublin Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Will Mr. Purcell explain the reason those legal expenses were incurred?

Mr. Brian Purcell:

They are part of the total figure of €8.6 million paid out in legal fees. They would include fees for third party involvement also.

Photo of Paschal DonohoePaschal Donohoe (Dublin Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is that a figure that could have been foreseen earlier in the year, given the number of years the office has been in operation?

Mr. Brian Purcell:

It is like any other court session. It can be very difficult to predict the way the courts will proceed and the duration of cases once they come before the courts. In that context, even though there is an ongoing level of expenditure on court cases on that side of the Department's Vote, like the other court element of the Department's expenditure, the figure can be difficult to predict in advance.

Photo of Paschal DonohoePaschal Donohoe (Dublin Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Will Mr. Purcell detail the target times the Department has in place for the handling of asylum seeker requests and, separately, the handling of citizenship applications?

Mr. Brian Purcell:

While I am looking for that information, I might give the Deputy further information on costs. The figure for the cost of judicial reviews and other legal costs in 2012, in so far as the service is provided by the legal services support unit of the repatriation division, was €4.36 million, which includes the figure for legal challenges taken against decisions to deport or transfer, as well as for challenges to decisions taken by the INIS's EU treaty rights, general immigration and family reunification areas. A small proportion of the costs involve arises from other legal challenges to procedural decisions in the asylum immigration process, for example, inquiries under Article 40.4 of the Constitution in respect of detention and injunction hearings. That figure does not include the cost of judicial review proceedings taken against the Office of the Refugee Applications Commissioner, the Refugee Appeals Tribunal or the citizenship division of the Irish Naturalisation and Immigration Service. As I said, overall legal costs for all INIS and related areas amounted to €8.6 million and €6.3 million for the years 2011 and 2012, respectively.

Where the courts rule in favour of an applicant, legal costs in a case are usually awarded against the Minister and the applicant's costs are met from the Minister's Vote. The applicant's costs may also be met from the Minister's Vote in certain cases arising from settlements between the parties. The Minister's own legal costs which are very significant are met from the Vote of the Chief State Solicitor's office and, consequently, are reflected in the figure given. Contributions towards the Minister's legal costs have been received from the applicants in a small number of cases and recovery of these costs was managed by the Chief State Solicitor's office.

On processing times, one of the matters on which we have received a certain level of criticism during the years has been the asylum system and the length of time it takes to process asylum applications, with the duration of waiting times regularly quoted in years. That view is not necessarily correct and may sometimes be informed by a misunderstanding of the processing system. In 2012 the Minister made 1,023 decisions on refugee status. The medium processing time of asylum applications, including the appeal stage, in this period was 8.3 months. Persons who are refused asylum enter what is commonly referred to as the leave to remain process under section 3 of the Immigration Act 1999. This is separate from the asylum or refugee status determination process. The leave to remain process involves consideration of applications for subsidiary protection and other reasons a failed asylum seeker may present for remaining in the State. The processing of such cases is complex and extremely resource intensive. The investigation of the subsidiary protection application requires a fresh examination of the entire asylum file, the documentation and country of origin information submitted in support of the application, as well as an examination of the objective and reputable up-to-date country of origin information before a conclusion can be arrived at as to whether the applicant is likely to be exposed to serious harm if returned to his or her country of origin. Where such an application is refused, consideration must be given to the case in accordance with the provisions of section 3 of the Act, at which point the Minister must make a decision as to whether to make a deportation order in respect of the person concerned. All of this must be carried out in strict compliance with the Constitution, together with relevant international treaties such as the European Convention on Human Rights. It will be seen that these are not quick or easy decisions to make, given the life-changing consequences for the persons involved and because of this, decisions must be taken with the most scrupulous care and attention.

Steps have been taken to speed up the processing of applications, initially by redeploying staff from the refugee determination bodies and more recently by the decision to establish a case processing panel of legally qualified graduates to assist in clearing the backlog. In addition, we hope the Immigration, Residence and Protection Bill will substantially simplify and streamline the existing arrangements and provide applicants with a final decision on their applications in a more straightforward and timely fashion.

Photo of Paschal DonohoePaschal Donohoe (Dublin Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Given what Mr. Purcell has just said, will he inform me of the current position on the target time for dealing with an initial asylum application? What is the position on the target time applying to the leave to remain period to which he referred?

Mr. Brian Purcell:

I can get an exact breakdown of all the figures mentioned for the Deputy. The intention is to process these cases as quickly as possible but, as I indicated, decisions can be subject to challenge. Because of the scrupulous care that has to be applied, this can sometimes delay the process. If the Deputy wishes, I will forward to him a complete breakdown of all the statistics, facts and figures for all aspects of the process.

10:50 am

Photo of Paschal DonohoePaschal Donohoe (Dublin Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is Mr. Purcell in a position to tell me the target time for the completion of the entire process? By "process", I specifically mean the handling of the initial application and of the review of the leave-to-remain decision.

Mr. Brian Purcell:

I cannot say precisely. There is not a precise target time; it depends. The individual elements of particular cases are all so different so there is not a precise target time. I hope I can provide the Deputy with a breakdown of the actual time taken for each element. It is so difficult because of the very different circumstances that apply in individual cases, but the target is to process these cases as quickly as possible given the difficulties and complexities involved owing to the very personal detail required for every case. As has often been seen, because of the difficult circumstances in which many people find themselves as they come into the system, there can be issues in relation to documentation not being available. This, in turn, can create delays. These are the particular problems that the people processing the cases have to deal with.

Photo of Paschal DonohoePaschal Donohoe (Dublin Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I appreciate that. I have dealt with individuals who are seeking asylum and also the officials, who all do a great job. As Mr. Purcell pointed out, it is a very difficult and complicated issue. I am aware of the amount of public commentary on how long some people are waiting and am struck by the fact that if I look at the different budget allocations in regard to immigration and asylum overall, I discover that cumulatively they comprise the largest single Estimate of the entire Vote by a long way. Should we not have a target time by which applications are processed?

Mr. Brian Purcell:

In some instances, one can set target times when one knows there is a relatively straightforward process. If we were to set target times in the cases we are dealing with, there would be a danger that they would be so far out that we would be criticised for setting targets indicating it would take too long to deal with these cases. Alternatively, if we put down tighter target times, we would almost be putting them down in the certain knowledge that we would not be able to meet them. The hope is that when the immigration Bill is brought through, it will go some way towards streamlining the process and enabling quicker delivery. We are not trying to avoid anything or make things easy for ourselves because, as the Deputy knows well from his experience in dealing with these cases, they are so complex that it is difficult to estimate at the beginning how long they will take. As cases progress, invariably and inevitably fresh material begins to arise. Setting targets could create a risk in that they could be too far out or too tight. It is impossible to set targets for the broad range of cases and there can be such significant variation in individual cases.

Photo of Paschal DonohoePaschal Donohoe (Dublin Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Does Mr. Purcell not believe that people applying for asylum should know roughly how long the process will take? The taxpayer who is funding the process has a right to know how long it will take. As I stated, the funding for the INIS is €57 million.

Mr. Brian Purcell:

Yes. The asylum element, although it is a significant part of the process and very intensive in terms of the work involved for the State, the people concerned and the agencies who help them, is only a part of the process. I will raise this matter in discussions with the officials in INIS to determine whether there is any way in which we could come up with a set of targets that would be meaningful, particularly with an eye to the enactment of the immigration Bill. We will consider this.

Photo of Paschal DonohoePaschal Donohoe (Dublin Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I believe in the point of view of people in the system and those who are funding the system overall. They have a reasonable expectation that there would be objectives in place regarding how long the process will take, notwithstanding the complexities to which Mr. Purcell has alluded and of which I am aware.

Let me move on to the operation of the process overall. As Mr. Purcell rightly pointed out, the asylum seeking end is a portion of a wider set of services that we provide. For those who are seeking to make citizenship applications, as opposed to those seeking asylum seeker status, how long does the process take?

Mr. Brian Purcell:

We have made a good bit of progress on that front in recent years, notwithstanding a substantial increase in the number of valid applications. In 2011 and 2012, more than 38,000 valid applications were received. In the period from 9 March 2011 to 8 February 2013, a total of 45,800 valid applications were determined. By contrast, in 2010, a decision was reached in just under 7,800 cases. So far this year, decisions have been made on 8,300 applications, with the volume for 2013 to be similar to that achieved in 2012.

Photo of Paschal DonohoePaschal Donohoe (Dublin Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Could I interrupt Mr. Purcell in regard to those two figures? He stated approximately 7,000 decisions were made last year. Is that correct?

Mr. Brian Purcell:

In 2011 and 2012, more than 38,000 valid applications were received. There were 25,000 certificates issued in 2012.

Photo of Paschal DonohoePaschal Donohoe (Dublin Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Some 25,000. Does Mr. Purcell have the figures for the previous year?

Mr. Brian Purcell:

I can give them. In 2011, there were 10,754-----

Photo of Paschal DonohoePaschal Donohoe (Dublin Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Valid-----

Mr. Brian Purcell:

They were citizenship certificates issued in 2011. In 2010, the number was 6,394. I can give the Deputy a full list of the numbers of certificates from 2003.

Photo of Paschal DonohoePaschal Donohoe (Dublin Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Let me make sure I have the figures correct. In 2010, there were 6,394 and in 2011 there were 10,774, and in 2012 there were approximately 25,000.

Mr. Brian Purcell:

Yes.

Photo of Paschal DonohoePaschal Donohoe (Dublin Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Does Mr. Purcell have the average processing time for applications over the period in question?

Mr. Brian Purcell:

I should have that figure. There was a large number of cases and they all differ. As we said, it is difficult to give an average time but, on the immigration side, we have a target of processing 24,000 cases and issuing, we would hope, approximately 16,000 certificates during 2013.

Photo of Paschal DonohoePaschal Donohoe (Dublin Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Does Mr. Purcell know the time involved?

Mr. Brian Purcell:

I am afraid I do not have that. I believe there are some figures but I just do not have them to hand. I will see whether I can get all the exact figures.

Photo of Paschal DonohoePaschal Donohoe (Dublin Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will revert to the figure made earlier on the smaller number of asylum seekers. It is reasonable that asylum seekers and those funding the process would know how long the entire process takes.

11:00 am

Mr. Brian Purcell:

Okay.

Photo of Paschal DonohoePaschal Donohoe (Dublin Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Are there targets in existence for this process from a time perspective?

Mr. Brian Purcell:

For the asylum process?

Photo of Paschal DonohoePaschal Donohoe (Dublin Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

No, not for asylum but for the citizenship process.

Mr. Brian Purcell:

As I stated, the target is that we would cover those ones. Moreover, our hope would be that we would not take longer than six months to deal with an individual application. In a lot of cases, we do it quicker than in six months and in some cases, we do not. However, the target figure is that they would be dealt with within six months, which is-----

Photo of Paschal DonohoePaschal Donohoe (Dublin Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is this a firm target the organisation has set for itself?

Mr. Brian Purcell:

Yes and, by and large, we are achieving it at present, despite the significant number of cases coming through the system.

Photo of Paschal DonohoePaschal Donohoe (Dublin Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

As for how the process itself works overall, does the Secretary General have information regarding the number of citizenship or asylum decisions that are appealed by the applicant?

Mr. Brian Purcell:

The initial recognition rate is quite low on the asylum front. It is only approximately 3%.

Photo of Paschal DonohoePaschal Donohoe (Dublin Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

To what rate did Mr. Purcell refer?

Mr. Brian Purcell:

The initial acceptance rate of applications for asylum is quite low at approximately 3%. I do not have the figure to hand regarding appeals at present but the Department has those figures.

Photo of Paschal DonohoePaschal Donohoe (Dublin Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Okay.

Mr. Brian Purcell:

I can get those figures for the Deputy.

Photo of Paschal DonohoePaschal Donohoe (Dublin Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

What does the Secretary General mean by "acceptance"? Does that refer to the decisions that are accepted by the applicant?

Mr. Brian Purcell:

No, it refers to the applications in which asylum is granted.

Photo of Paschal DonohoePaschal Donohoe (Dublin Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The rate is 3%.

Mr. Brian Purcell:

It is 3% of the total number of initial applications.

Photo of Paschal DonohoePaschal Donohoe (Dublin Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

While it sounds as though he does not, does the Secretary General have to hand the information regarding what happens to the other 97%? Are they all appealed?

Mr. Brian Purcell:

A lot of them are appealed and they go through the various stages of the process, then subsidiary protection and so on. Consequently, yes, a significant proportion of the balance then proceeds through the system.

Photo of Paschal DonohoePaschal Donohoe (Dublin Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Out of the total number of asylum applications that come in, only 3% initially are deemed to be successful.

Mr. Brian Purcell:

Yes.

Photo of Paschal DonohoePaschal Donohoe (Dublin Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I ask the Secretary General to get this information for the committee.

Mr. Brian Purcell:

I will. I do have something to hand in this regard. While it varies from year to year, the average over a number of years in respect of the numbers granted at first instance and after the appeal stage is approximately 7.6%.

Photo of Paschal DonohoePaschal Donohoe (Dublin Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

On the matter of the cost of looking after and supporting people who are seeking asylum status here in Ireland, it is completely correct that the State supports them while they are here and seeking for the process to be completed. A recent report found the Department of Justice and Equality spent €655 million on asylum seekers' accommodation from 2000 to 2010. Obviously, this is a very large amount of money but, as I stated, it is spent for people who deserve accommodation as they wait for a decision to be made for them. An additional report found that one company was paid €89.5 million across the period. What steps have been taken to monitor the current cost of direct provision accommodation? What steps have been taken by the Department to reduce that cost?

Mr. Brian Purcell:

In summary, as has been indicated, it is a very costly system. A value for money report in 2010 stated there was no cheaper alternative to direct provision. However, we constantly give consideration to options for reductions in the cost of the accommodation provision given the tight nature of the available budget. Due to the exceptionally difficult state of the national finances and in response to the need for all Departments to achieve such reductions, we have been looking closely at expenditure in all areas, including the Reception and Integration Agency, RIA. In that context, we sought and achieved a reduction in spending by an overall 6% from April to December 2009. That was the equivalent, over a full year, to 8% and these savings continue to be implemented through 2010, 2011, 2012 and beyond. Together with the rate and bed reductions achieved under this exercise, we have been able to deliver a level of savings that has enabled us to live within our overall budget.

We monitor closely all elements of the cost in the centres and continually strive to deliver value for money. One thing we have tried to do in more recent years is to reduce the level of vacant beds we are obliged to carry in the system. We have managed to achieve that to a point where we never have more than a maximum of 10% of vacant beds in the system. We have had this in place since 2011. It is a large and complex undertaking and as the Deputy is aware, it initially was introduced in a crisis situation and has evolved subsequently. The primary objective is to provide a level of accommodation and service that is suitable in the particular circumstances. However, we are doing everything possible to try to ensure we get value for money. The nature of the element of expenditure to particular contractors obviously is a result of the number of centres we have and their location.

Photo of Paschal DonohoePaschal Donohoe (Dublin Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Have discussions taken place with bodies such as NAMA, for example, to ascertain whether lands or facilities for which they have responsibility could be used in any way for this purpose?

Mr. Brian Purcell:

In a nutshell, the services the RIA provides do not simply pertain to accommodation as a full range of services is provided. Consequently, simply getting a building from NAMA would only give one the actual building itself. The likelihood is one then might be obliged to incur further expenditure on modifying it or making whatever structural changes were required. However, it is not just about the provision of accommodation but also pertains to the services that are provided by the RIA. In fact, this represents a substantial element of the cost of provision, that is, the contracts that are in place.

Photo of Paschal DonohoePaschal Donohoe (Dublin Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

On the point regarding service delivery, is the Secretary General aware of the report from the European Commission of Human Rights stating that such accommodation was having negative effects on the mental health, family ties and integration prospects of those people who were in the centres? Has the Department been obliged to respond in this regard?

Mr. Brian Purcell:

Ever since the establishment of the Reception and Integration Agency, it has been the subject of a number of criticisms. It is there to provide a particular service. We do not necessarily agree with some of the criticisms made regarding the services the agency provides. It is there to serve a purpose in that we must accommodate people within the system while their cases are being dealt with and it is an effective and cost-efficient mechanism for so doing. We ensure that standards are maintained. Undoubtedly, many of the people in the centres would prefer to be living in accommodation that might be provided by local authorities and so on.

However, the reality is that if everyone who was in RIA accommodation was put into circumstances where local authorities had to provide housing and other State agencies had to provide the full range of services to them outside the RIA system, the cost to the State would be massive.

11:10 am

Photo of Paschal DonohoePaschal Donohoe (Dublin Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I understand.

Mr. Brian Purcell:

We try to ensure all the needs of people in the reception and integration agency are dealt with. We hold clinics in all of them with the people who are resident in the centres at which they have the opportunity to raise any problems they may have. On a day-to-day basis, they have an opportunity to raise such issues with the management of the centres involved.

Having said that, complaints are made and people are not necessarily happy to stay in these centres for lengthy periods. We have conducted value for money surveys and we believe this is the best, most effective and certainly the most cost-effective way of providing a humane residential accommodation mechanism for those who find themselves in the process. Nobody has ever said that the system is perfect, but if there are any failings or if standards are not being complied with, we do try to deal with them quickly and effectively.

Photo of Paschal DonohoePaschal Donohoe (Dublin Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I entirely take Mr. Purcell's point that the provision of local authority housing in dealing with this would not be either feasible or, indeed, appropriate in many cases. I accept that point but I wish to go back to the issue we discussed earlier regarding the targets for how long this has been processed. From dealing with this issue in my constituency, it appears to me that it is pivotal to handle the applications as quickly as possible as well as giving people an understanding of how long it can take. That can go some way towards allaying much of the difficulty we are discussing.

Mr. Brian Purcell:

Yes. The Deputy's point is valid. The length of time that people stay in direct provision is an issue of which we are well aware. When the phenomenon first came into effect at the turn of the century - it seems strange to be saying that - it was believed they would not have to spend as long as they did. The experience we have had, however - and this is reflected in other systems elsewhere - is that the underlying question people ask is whether they can stay there. This question means that even after a determination has been made, they will continue to seek to stay there through every mechanism in place. It does go the full run of every challenge. In cases where decisions are taken that people are not going to stay, it can be a long drawn out process. That, effectively, is the nature of the system. One could possibly deal with cases much more quickly by getting a decision and then people would be out of the country altogether. However, given the nature of the process and the scrupulous level of care that has to be applied, it is almost inevitable.

Photo of Paschal DonohoePaschal Donohoe (Dublin Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes.

Mr. Brian Purcell:

As I said earlier, we do hope that when the immigration Bill is enacted, it will streamline the process and greatly reduce the time it takes to deal with these cases.

Photo of Paschal DonohoePaschal Donohoe (Dublin Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We are also talking about a process in which only 3% of the initial applications are successful.

Mr. Brian Purcell:

That was one year in particular.

Photo of Paschal DonohoePaschal Donohoe (Dublin Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Does Mr. Purcell have a more recent figure?

Mr. Brian Purcell:

Yes. I will get the Deputy the full range of figures for all the years after that.

Photo of Paschal DonohoePaschal Donohoe (Dublin Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Okay. I will leave it at that for the time being.

Photo of Derek NolanDerek Nolan (Galway West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will leave the lease issue until later on, and will take the Vote issue first. I was not going to refer to the asylum and immigration process but I will react because it is something with which I am familiar and deal with a lot. When the history of this period is written, we will look back at the institutionalisation of people for five or six years, whereby they suffer from mental health issues due to the boredom involved. They have €19 a week which barely gets them by and they have no activity. They are languishing and afraid in a nihilistic existence where they are constantly awaiting a letter to say they will be deported or are allowed to stay. That history will be damning for the Department and this State.

I accept that Mr. Purcell is implementing a policy decision. I heard him say it is a humane system which serves a purpose and fits in, but those are the type of things we said about the residential institutions and Magdalen laundries over the years. When we look back, it will be with severe scorn. I am not directing that criticism at the Secretary General personally, but I must react to the conversation that took place earlier. Is it true that the system of direct provision was initially introduced with a proviso that no one would stay in it for longer than six months?

Mr. Brian Purcell:

While I am sure it was unintended, I do not accept any comparison of the circumstances in RIA accommodation to the Magdalen laundries or other institutions that in recent years have been the subject of tribunals of inquiry. I presume that the Deputy did not intend to imply that.

Photo of Derek NolanDerek Nolan (Galway West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

No, but the language used at the time was similar to the language we are using now. The language used to justify those cases is similar to the language we use today to justify keeping families of poor people in a small hotel room for six years, not knowing what is going on, with no money or resources and very little educational standards coming out of it. That is what I think.

Mr. Brian Purcell:

As I said, the system is not perfect. Unlike the situation in years gone by, however, there is a level of examination of what is going on. Deputies take a big interest in this particular issue. The very fact that it is open to criticism and that we do our best to address the issues raised is a clear indication that we are not dealing with a situation such as the one the Deputy outlined. I know that he does not intend to make that direct comparison.

It is difficult for the people involved in running these centres and it is tough for the people who are there. Anyone can understand that where one has uncertainty about one's own or one's family position, it will obviously have an impact on people. The longer that level of uncertainty goes on, it is bound to have an impact. It would have an impact on any of us if we found ourselves in those situations. We must, therefore, try to ensure that the system is in a position to deal with the applications as quickly as possible.

I know the Deputy has been involved extensively with the centres in Galway. He will know that as things progress through the system, there are various stages and challenges which are part and parcel of the process we have. In turn, that can lengthen the stay for people there.

Photo of Derek NolanDerek Nolan (Galway West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

My question was whether direct provision was initially introduced with a maximum envisaged time limit of six months.

Mr. Brian Purcell:

At the time, I think the intention was that the time people would have to spend there would be limited. As I mentioned when speaking to Deputy Donohoe, however, that has been the experience of systems internationally. Initially the intention was that people would not have to spend too much time in them. When it was initially set up it was in response to a certain number coming in, but there was a massive expansion in the numbers of people being put through the system.

Photo of Derek NolanDerek Nolan (Galway West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

If a time limit of six months was put on it, it was obviously done for a reason. I am straying into policy issues that we are not really supposed to go into, so I am happy to leave it there.

I have one factual question that I would like to ask. The current system through which most people go is that they apply and are refused. When they appeal, they are normally refused and then they either go for humanitarian leave to remain or many will opt for a judicial review of their cases. At the current rate at which judicial review proceedings are being processed by the High Court for those in the asylum and immigration process, how long will it take for all those cases to be dealt with?

11:20 am

Mr. Brian Purcell:

To be honest, it depends on the throughput and the ability of the courts system to deal with those cases. We had 314 new judicial review cases in 2012, 453 in 2011 and 374 in 2010. In 2012 we had 350 cases finalised, 191 in 2011 and 235 in 2010. The number of new cases coming on stream was 1,141, while 756 were dealt with. That is the level of throughput in the system.

Photo of Derek NolanDerek Nolan (Galway West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

How many cases were dealt with in 2012?

Mr. Brian Purcell:

There were 314 new cases, while 350 cases were finalised.

Photo of Derek NolanDerek Nolan (Galway West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

How many are outstanding in total?

Mr. Brian Purcell:

I do not have the actual figure to hand. There is obviously a gap of 365 in new cases.

Photo of Derek NolanDerek Nolan (Galway West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Will Mr. Purcell supply to the clerk to the committee later the current rate of cases with which the High Court is dealing?

Mr. Brian Purcell:

Yes. However, it will just be an indicative figure which will not necessarily stand up. As I said, there is a gap of 360 odd cases between the numbers finalised and the numbers received during that period. We can try to gauge when they came in and when they were dealt with to give an estimate.

Photo of Derek NolanDerek Nolan (Galway West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That would be appreciated. I have a constituent who applied for citizenship nearly four and a half years ago but has still not received a decision. The six month target in some cases is certainly being well missed.

Mr. Brian Purcell:

That is why it is so difficult to give an exact figure. Without knowing the circumstances of the case, I imagine, given the time involved, that the application has gone through a level of complexity and probably for judicial review. As the Deputy knows from his experience in dealing with such cases, they tend to be very complex. While everyone would prefer that the system could move quicker, it does depend on its ability to process them and, particularly with the cases that go to court, it is down to the ability of the courts system to move them through.

Photo of Derek NolanDerek Nolan (Galway West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Actually, my case involves a citizenship application.

Mr. Brian Purcell:

If the Deputy gives me the details, I will check it. For any citizenship application that takes that long to process there has to be reasons.

Photo of Derek NolanDerek Nolan (Galway West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Turning to Ms Creedon's accounts, subhead A6, the 2011 figure for office premises expenses on furniture and fittings was €72,000, yet the office spent €148,000. Why was there such an increase in expenses on office furniture?

Ms Eileen Creedon:

In 2011 we embarked on a specific programme of renovation of our premises. As one can see in 2012, although we had an Estimate figure of €70,000, actual expenditure was down to €32,390. The figure for 2011 involved refurbishment, the realignment of rooms to create better accommodation and reorganise the interior of our office space which resulted in an abnormal spend.

Photo of Derek NolanDerek Nolan (Galway West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Most Departments and Government-funded offices were in complete financial lockdown in 2011. Not many went and undertook a vast reorganisation of their office spaces when there were budget cuts of €6 billion the year before.

Ms Eileen Creedon:

It was the year before my time. I am advised that there was a specific programme of maintenance and refurbishment in that year.

Photo of Derek NolanDerek Nolan (Galway West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Was the refurbishment necessary or was it a discretionary decision?

Mr. Michael Fallon:

The main reason was some health and safety issues had to be addressed.

Photo of Derek NolanDerek Nolan (Galway West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Therefore, it was obligatory. Ms Creedon has stated maintaining and keeping high calibre staff is a challenge for her office. Is the office losing staff regularly?

Ms Eileen Creedon:

Yes, the recruitment and maintenance of high calibre staff is an ongoing challenge for the office. All Departments are operating under constraints in terms of budgets and staff numbers. We operate under the same constraints with regard to staff numbers and salaries. We are down to a very low base in terms of recruitment salary. These are changes that have been made because of the current economic situation.

Photo of Derek NolanDerek Nolan (Galway West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

What is the starting salary?

Ms Eileen Creedon:

It is just over €28,000 for a qualified solicitor. I can only offer contracts to keep within my ECF, employment control framework, budget. Despite the economic downturn and the environment in the private sector, it is still very difficult to recruit and retain staff at that level. That is a challenge for me. As I set out in my briefing document, the level of work through the office is complex, important and requires specialisms. I have a large cohort of dedicated and highly qualified staff. However, as my staff depletes from the top owing to retirements and other issues, recruitment at the bottom remains very challenging.

Photo of Derek NolanDerek Nolan (Galway West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

In effect, qualified solicitors are choosing to stay unemployed rather than to work for the office.

Ms Eileen Creedon:

I have managed to get some solicitors in, but very often they are quickly offered another position with better money. They will join rather than remain unemployed. It is gratifying for me that when solicitors join the office, they find the work rewarding and interesting. However, it is difficult for them to stay with me if they get an offer in excess of the salary we offer. There was a time when I would have had discretion on the entry scale, depending on an entrant's qualifications and experience. That discretion has been taken from me. There were also some increments I could award within that scale to ease the pain of the low entry salary, but that has also been taken away. This double-whammy imposed in 2010 has made recruitment difficult.

Photo of Derek NolanDerek Nolan (Galway West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The office's counsel bill is down by 46%, which must be acknowledged. Is that as a result of the office reducing the fees it is paying by a straight cut or is it through skill mixes such as hiring a junior counsel when once a senior counsel was hired? As a result of this reduction, do senior or junior counsel refuse to work for the office as the fees are too low?

Ms Eileen Creedon:

It is as a result of making cuts to the actual fees we have been paying to counsel. As I said in my briefing document, the review and management of counsel fees is a key activity for the office. Reviews of fees are sent to a high level group in the office in order that all fee notes are reviewed before they are paid.

We have been driving at this hard since 2008 and, as the Deputy can see, it has borne results. We are conscious, however, that we may at some point reach the floor. Obviously, because of the type of work that goes through the office, it is very important that the Attorney General be able to recruit counsel with the skills and at the level required for some of the very high end public law cases. We are keeping a tight watch in that regard. Certainly we have received feedback from counsel indicating that they believe it has become very tight, but it has become very tight for everybody everywhere. We have achieved these results. We are not saying we have hit the bottom; we may not have. However, we are in a changed environment, with two new taxing masters. We are watching and keeping with it, but it is due to the reducing amount of money we are paying.

11:30 am

Photo of Derek NolanDerek Nolan (Galway West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

In summary, despite having cut fees by 50%, is the Chief State Solicitor encountering no problems in getting barristers to do the work?

Ms Eileen Creedon:

Not at the moment. The work is rewarding. I suppose when it comes to State work, there is the nature of the work involved and the fact that, whatever the fee, one will be paid.

Photo of Derek NolanDerek Nolan (Galway West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There is a guaranteed payment. Does it indicate that perhaps the Chief State Solicitor was paying too much in previous years?

Ms Eileen Creedon:

It may certainly have done so, but there is a changed environment. We took it on ourselves back then to really look at this area and, in effect, micro-manage it. We have been doing this and achieved good results.

Photo of John McGuinnessJohn McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Deputies Eoghan Murphy and Mary Lou McDonald have indicated. I hope to move to chapter 15 at noon. We can revisit the general Vote, but I remind the committee that such is the timeframe.

Photo of Eoghan MurphyEoghan Murphy (Dublin South East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Chairman has stated we hope to move to chapter 15 at noon. Does he intend to come back to the general Vote after that? How long are we planning to spend on chapter 15?

Photo of John McGuinnessJohn McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Deputy is the lead speaker on the chapter.

Photo of Eoghan MurphyEoghan Murphy (Dublin South East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is fine. I am wondering at what time we hope to come back to the general Vote.

Photo of John McGuinnessJohn McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That depends on how long the discussion on chapter 15 takes.

Photo of Eoghan MurphyEoghan Murphy (Dublin South East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I wanted to spend some time on the issue of asylum seekers, if possible, but I do not want to interfere with chapter 15. Should I wait until after the chapter has been discussed?

Photo of John McGuinnessJohn McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is up to the Deputy.

Photo of Eoghan MurphyEoghan Murphy (Dublin South East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will begin and the Chairman may ask me to conclude when he needs me to do so.

I thank Mr. Purcell and everyone else for coming. I return to the issue of asylum seekers by asking a general question. Is the title "asylum seeker" a de facto status given to someone or is it only given to a person once he or she has been processed through the system?

Mr. Brian Purcell:

It is given when they apply for asylum.

Photo of Eoghan MurphyEoghan Murphy (Dublin South East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Are there persons who are removed before they get as far as applying for asylum? I am looking at a reply to a parliamentary question and curious about the term "persons who are refused leave to land and are removed from the State". What does that mean?

Mr. Brian Purcell:

They are refused leave to land because they do not have the necessary papers. Some come without the necessary papers and then apply for asylum, but not everyone applies for asylum.

Photo of Eoghan MurphyEoghan Murphy (Dublin South East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

However, they are on our territory. It is described as "refused leave to land". Does this mean they are at the airport without papers?

Mr. Brian Purcell:

Yes. Some would be turned around at the airport, while some might be held. Sometimes the persons held make asylum applications, but a significant number would be turned around at the airport.

Photo of Eoghan MurphyEoghan Murphy (Dublin South East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

On the ones turned around, there are approximately 2,500 persons a year who are refused leave to land and removed from the State.

Mr. Brian Purcell:

Yes.

Photo of Eoghan MurphyEoghan Murphy (Dublin South East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Are they entitled to apply for asylum?

Mr. Brian Purcell:

Anyone can apply.

Photo of Eoghan MurphyEoghan Murphy (Dublin South East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

They come here with no papers, decide not to apply for asylum and are just shipped back again. Where do they stay before they are removed from the State?

Mr. Brian Purcell:

Some of them would be turned around virtually straightaway, depending on from where they had come, while others might be detained within the facilities we have available.

Photo of Eoghan MurphyEoghan Murphy (Dublin South East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

For how long might they be detained?

Mr. Brian Purcell:

It depends. The ones who are refused leave to land and do not apply are turned around quickly.

Photo of Eoghan MurphyEoghan Murphy (Dublin South East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is that within 24 hours?

Mr. Brian Purcell:

It can be. I am looking at the figures for 2012 when a small number applied for asylum. Some 2,239 persons were refused entry to the State at ports of entry and returned to the place from where they had come. A small number of these persons applied for asylum and were subsequently granted permission to enter the State in order that their applications could be processed. There is a constant number of persons coming into the system who are turned around at the border.

Photo of Eoghan MurphyEoghan Murphy (Dublin South East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

However, some might not be turned around within 24 hours and are detained or kept somewhere or other.

Mr. Brian Purcell:

Depending on the time at which they arrive or where they are, it might not be possible to turn them straight around.

Photo of Eoghan MurphyEoghan Murphy (Dublin South East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

If they are being detained here, are they under arrest? What is their status or how does the system work?

Mr. Brian Purcell:

Some of them are held because they have no papers.

Photo of Eoghan MurphyEoghan Murphy (Dublin South East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Are they under arrest?

Mr. Brian Purcell:

They are not under arrest in the context in which someone would normally be under arrest, but they are detained pending their leaving the country because they do not have papers.

Photo of Eoghan MurphyEoghan Murphy (Dublin South East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Where are they detained? For example, are they kept in a waiting room at the airport?

Mr. Brian Purcell:

Some of them would be kept at the airport, depending on the opportunity available to turn them around. Some might be kept in the prison overnight, depending on when they could be moved. If they had to stay overnight, that is where they would be held. Most would be held in Cloverhill Prison.

Photo of Eoghan MurphyEoghan Murphy (Dublin South East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

What about children who come here with a parent and do not have papers and where officials cannot turn them around quickly? Where would they be detained?

Mr. Brian Purcell:

Obviously, there are no children in Cloverhill Prison, as it is a male prison. If there were females detained overnight, they would be held in the Dóchas Centre. Sometimes, depending on the age of the infant, he or she might be kept there or else the mother and child would be detained somewhere other than the prison, depending on circumstances.

Photo of Eoghan MurphyEoghan Murphy (Dublin South East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The asylum seeker issue is one that constantly comes to my attention in terms of the length of time persons have to wait for their applications to be processed. By the end of 2012, 60% of residents in the centres had been resident there for more than three years. According to the figures available to me, 272 persons have been waiting more than seven years to have their applications processed. What causes such a delay of seven years?

Mr. Brian Purcell:

As I have indicated, the length of time persons stay in the system depends on a number of factors and it also depends on individual circumstances. In addition to others, the RIA accommodates persons who are involved in judicial review proceedings. They are persons who have applied for subsidiary protection. There are also those who have received deportation orders and are appealing against them. There are a number of steps in the process. The effect of all these steps is that it takes time and that, in turn, means they spend a longer time in the system.

The persons to whom the Deputy refers who spend a significant number of years within the system are generally those who go right through the process. I will not use the word "exhausted", but they go through steps. For example, sometimes there can be delays because after an individual has gone through every stage of the process, he or she then goes through the same steps for his or her children. This can result in - I hesitate to use the word - delays and increase the length of time they spend in the system.

It is a complex legal issue. I am not sure whether the Deputy was present when I spoke earlier, but we have a duty of care and must be scrupulously careful in the way we deal with these cases because of our obligations under international law.

Photo of Eoghan MurphyEoghan Murphy (Dublin South East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Are we failing in that duty of care by keeping someone in that position for seven years? It is like being in limbo.

Mr. Brian Purcell:

We had a discussion and I cannot recall whether the Deputy was present for it.

Photo of Eoghan MurphyEoghan Murphy (Dublin South East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I was here and listening.

Mr. Brian Purcell:

We are providing a level of care that is of a high standard. I did say it was not a perfect system. The vast majority of those within it would much prefer to be in a position where they did not have to stay in one of our centres.

They would much prefer to be in housing that might be provided by a local authority. They might be prepared then to have all the services provided in other ways. However, the cost to the State would be enormous and there is an element of the draw factor to that as well.

11:40 am

Photo of Eoghan MurphyEoghan Murphy (Dublin South East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have seen the value for money report that was done on the alternatives and the increased cost involved. I am asking not just about the accommodation but what they are permitted to do. I believe we were one of only two countries to opt out of a 2003 directive, which meant that asylum seekers are not entitled to work or get education after 12 months, as is the norm in most other European countries.

Mr. Brian Purcell:

There is direct provision where they are provided with a certain amount each week. They are provided with all their needs - food, clothing, accommodation, medical care. Children attend schools in the areas where the centres would be located, so there is access to education. I am not sure-----

Photo of Eoghan MurphyEoghan Murphy (Dublin South East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

For adults there is not access to education and they cannot attend a third level course, for example.

Mr. Brian Purcell:

We are providing basic accommodation and services, but at a certain standard. I said earlier that nobody would like to be in those circumstances for a period of lengthy duration. However, it is the best we can provide within the level of resources that the State has to cover this particular cost.

Photo of Eoghan MurphyEoghan Murphy (Dublin South East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

In the UK, for example, after 12 months an asylum seeker can go out and get a job, but we cannot let them do that here.

Mr. Brian Purcell:

I do not know that is the case in the UK.

Photo of Eoghan MurphyEoghan Murphy (Dublin South East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Why can we not apply that here if an asylum seeker wishes to go out and have the dignity of working?

Mr. Brian Purcell:

Well-----

Photo of Eoghan MurphyEoghan Murphy (Dublin South East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is it a cost issue?

Mr. Brian Purcell:

It is not necessarily a cost issue, but there are issues. I do not really want to open up a debate on the policy, but there would be issues. There would be an element of draw factor here as well, which has to be taken into consideration. We are providing a basic level of care and we believe it is a humane level of care. It is not luxury and nobody ever said it was. We provide the basic rights. Children have access to all educational facilities that are required. Whether or not we want to provide a system where adults can go to third level courses or whatever, there are limits to what we can do within the budget that we have.

Photo of Eoghan MurphyEoghan Murphy (Dublin South East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I understand that €19 a week is given out. Is that given out by the individual centres? Do they administer that?

Mr. Brian Purcell:

Yes.

Photo of Eoghan MurphyEoghan Murphy (Dublin South East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Do they have the authority to withhold that from an individual?

Mr. Brian Purcell:

I am not aware of cases where that money has been withheld.

Photo of Eoghan MurphyEoghan Murphy (Dublin South East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

In what circumstances would that money be withheld from an individual and who would make that decision?

Mr. Brian Purcell:

I am not sure. I do not think it happens in practice.

Photo of Eoghan MurphyEoghan Murphy (Dublin South East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It recently came to our attention that Hatch Hall carried out a survey to find out who was doing work or studies. As a result of that information it decided to start withholding the €19 a week. Has that come to the Mr. Purcell's attention?

Mr. Brian Purcell:

I can check that out.

Photo of Eoghan MurphyEoghan Murphy (Dublin South East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is refusing to give out the lunches.

Mr. Brian Purcell:

It has not been brought to my attention. If that is happening, it has not been brought to my attention.

Photo of Eoghan MurphyEoghan Murphy (Dublin South East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will bring it to his attention now because it has been reported to me by residents in Hatch Hall. They are not being allowed to get their lunch or their lunch box if they are going to be out for the day and they are not getting their €19 a week.

Mr. Brian Purcell:

I wish to correct something. The payments are actually made by the Department of Social Protection. They are not made directly by the management in the centres. It may well be the case that it is being withdrawn. If the Deputy is telling me that-----

Photo of Eoghan MurphyEoghan Murphy (Dublin South East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It may be that it has been withdrawn.

Mr. Brian Purcell:

If, for example, someone has been working, it may well be the case, but I will have to check that. What I am aware of is that it is certainly not something that happens very often.

Photo of Eoghan MurphyEoghan Murphy (Dublin South East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

How does that process work? Does someone make a report stating that he or she knows an individual to be working?

Mr. Brian Purcell:

It may well be the case that someone might say that this person is working or whatever. That presumably is what may have happened.

Photo of Eoghan MurphyEoghan Murphy (Dublin South East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Could it happen if someone was studying?

Mr. Brian Purcell:

It would probably be less likely to happen if someone was studying, but I can check that out. As I have said, I am not aware of the Hatch Hall situation, but I will check that out and come back to the Deputy.

Photo of Eoghan MurphyEoghan Murphy (Dublin South East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is it correct that there would be no grounds by which one of the centres would be able to refuse a meal?

Mr. Brian Purcell:

No, there would be absolutely no circumstances in which-----

Photo of Eoghan MurphyEoghan Murphy (Dublin South East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Has Mr. Purcell received any reports of that happening?

Mr. Brian Purcell:

No. Is the Deputy referring to refusing meals?

Photo of Eoghan MurphyEoghan Murphy (Dublin South East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am talking about refusing to give, for example, a lunch.

Mr. Brian Purcell:

No, I am not aware that is-----

Photo of Eoghan MurphyEoghan Murphy (Dublin South East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I might bring that to Mr. Purcell separately from this.

Mr. Brian Purcell:

Is the Deputy aware of cases?

Photo of Eoghan MurphyEoghan Murphy (Dublin South East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes. In the past few weeks I have been getting quite a few.

Mr. Brian Purcell:

I would like to talk to the Deputy separately about that. That should not be happening.

Photo of Eoghan MurphyEoghan Murphy (Dublin South East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will bring that to the Secretary General separately after this meeting.

On the cost of the centres, Deputy Maureen O'Sullivan got a very good breakdown of the contracts for each centre and how much they cost. Is there individual scrutiny of each contract? There seems to be variation in what is being paid to different centres - even to ones with the same number of people.

Mr. Brian Purcell:

It is very carefully monitored. The business is tendered for and contracts are awarded. It is very carefully monitored after that to ensure that there is delivery of what is intended.

Photo of Eoghan MurphyEoghan Murphy (Dublin South East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

What would give rise to a difference of €50,000 or €100,000 between two centres with the same number of people?

Mr. Brian Purcell:

They might be providing a different level of service. There may be a different mix of occupant in one centre in comparison with the other and in the needs. Therefore, the costs might vary because of that.

Photo of Eoghan MurphyEoghan Murphy (Dublin South East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

If, for example, one centre had families it might have different costs to one that did not. Is it that kind of thing?

Mr. Brian Purcell:

Yes. There is a mix of single males, single females, single females with children, a male and female with children. There is a range of mixes and obviously, then, they would have differing needs. Depending on the type of accommodation, some of it might be more suitable for single males, for example, than it would be for families. The level of accommodation and services provided would differ because of that. That would generally be the reason. The average rate paid to commercial contractors is around €30 per person per day.

Photo of Eoghan MurphyEoghan Murphy (Dublin South East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

How does a contractor come to win a contract to provide services?

Mr. Brian Purcell:

It would be tendered and they would apply through the normal procurement arrangements.

Photo of Eoghan MurphyEoghan Murphy (Dublin South East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is it tendered publicly?

Mr. Brian Purcell:

Yes.

Photo of John McGuinnessJohn McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We can come back on the general Vote again. I call Deputy Nolan on chapter 15.

Photo of Derek NolanDerek Nolan (Galway West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

This chapter is of great concern. It states that the State has spent €2 million, €1 million on furbishing and €1 million on leases for premises in Dublin that have never been used. In addition, other premises have had to be sought so additional rent is being paid on top of that. We have been left with this chapter 15 outturn. Ms Creedon sent us correspondence quoting the Committees of the Houses of the Oireachtas (Compellability, Privileges and Immunities of Witnesses) Act 1997. That Act allows us to seek permission from the Oireachtas committee to compel witnesses and so on. It has only been used once - for the DIRT inquiry. Why did she quote that Act to us in her correspondence?

Ms Eileen Creedon:

I quoted that Act in my correspondence because of two specific provisions in it, section 3 and section 5. I appreciate that the committee is not in compellability mode at the moment and that I am here by invitation, but I am constrained. The purpose of section 3 allows the committee to direct certain evidence to be given and papers to be produced. It has a specific subsection - subsection 5 - and I am an officer of the Office of the Attorney General.

11:50 am

Photo of Derek NolanDerek Nolan (Galway West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am making the point chiefly because Ms Creedon is the Chief State Solicitor. She quoted an Act that is not applicable.

Ms Eileen Creedon:

I am an officer of the Office of the Attorney General under subsection-----

Photo of Derek NolanDerek Nolan (Galway West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We are not utilising this Act. Ms Creedon is here by invitation because she is the Chief State Solicitor.

Ms Eileen Creedon:

I would submit that it is not reasonable that this provision would be circumvented by way of invitation in order to compel me to discuss material that will be outside the reach of subsection 5 and section 5 and will prejudice the remedy the State has in these circumstances.

Photo of Derek NolanDerek Nolan (Galway West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Again, I understand the point Ms Creedon is making about compellability but my simple point is that the Chief State Solicitor has quoted an Act that does not apply in this instance because we have not compelled her. We have invited her in her function as an Accounting Officer for the Chief State Solicitor's office.

Ms Eileen Creedon:

I understand that it has not compelled me but it has been long-established practice and this section has been quoted on previous occasions when our office has been here by invitation where we have indicated clearly that we will not discuss live cases. There is very good reason for that. Section 3 deals with the solicitor-client privilege which is a very important matter. Section 5 deals with live matters before the courts. While we are not in compellability mode, I submit that these have been invoked before in similar circumstances where we have been here by invitation and have been accepted by this committee on previous occasions. If it is a case that the committee wishes to go into compellability mode with me, that is another issue but I am compelled to adhere to these sections because of my overriding duty to the taxpayer to pursue this remedy in these circumstances.

Photo of Derek NolanDerek Nolan (Galway West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I want to ask Ms Creedon some questions based on chapter 15 of the Comptroller and Auditor General's report. The first question does not relate to the planning issue. I suppose it does relate to planning but it concerns car parking spaces. Paragraph 15.10 concerns how the Chief State Solicitor's office raised planning concerns about eight car parking spaces for use by the Bridge Project. The office was offered eight car parking spaces but it discovered that something was wrong and excluded them. Could Ms Creedon give me the background on that?

Ms Eileen Creedon:

I do not mean to be unhelpful but that would involve me in discussing the facts of this case. I do not want to be unhelpful and to continue to quote the particular sections I have quoted but my overriding duty and responsibility here is to maintain the integrity of these proceedings and not to go into the facts of these cases. While I appreciate the chapter has been published and there are matters stated in that chapter that are in the public domain, I am firmly of the view that if I make further comment on them, I will quite foreseeably prejudice the proceedings that are in train at the moment.

Photo of Derek NolanDerek Nolan (Galway West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

When did proceedings initiate?

Ms Eileen Creedon:

We have been in correspondence for quite some time and proceedings initiated yesterday.

Photo of Derek NolanDerek Nolan (Galway West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The day before this committee was due to hear it?

Ms Eileen Creedon:

Yes.

Photo of Derek NolanDerek Nolan (Galway West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will take the Chairman's advice as to what the next step should be as Ms Creedon does not want to answer my questions.

Photo of John McGuinnessJohn McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Our advice is that this matter is rightfully before the committee, which is working on the Comptroller and Auditor General's report. Therefore, members have an obligation to go through that report and to ask the questions they see as appropriate. As I see it, from his opening remarks and exchanges up to now, Deputy Nolan can proceed and ask questions but he must bear in mind the constraints mentioned by Mr. Purcell in his opening remarks. The only footnote to that is that under Standing Order 163, we would be obliged to go into private session should it be requested. However, the fact is that we are now in public session and Deputy Nolan can ask the questions arising from the chapter if he observes the constraints that Mr. Purcell outlined at the beginning. He said that Ms Creedon was under certain constraints but there were certain questions she would answer and I think we should proceed on that basis.

Photo of Derek NolanDerek Nolan (Galway West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am conscious that Ms Creedon refused to answer the first question I asked so I am not sure how to proceed. I thought I was touching on a topic that was not central to the litigation. I can ask some general questions but they are all in the chapter. What I want to understand is why we have the problem. There are suggestions in this chapter and the Comptroller and Auditor General's report that may lay some blame on the Chief State Solicitor's office for the problem we have. That is what I want to look into and ask questions about.

Photo of John McGuinnessJohn McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The content of those questions may cut across the court case but the Comptroller and Auditor General's report is a public document and can be examined in terms of the general content. If Deputy Nolan pursued his questions along those lines, I would ask both the Accounting Officer and the Chief State Solicitor to co-operate with the questions that are being asked as long as we observe those constraints.

Photo of Derek NolanDerek Nolan (Galway West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Okay.

Photo of John McGuinnessJohn McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Would Mr. Purcell like to comment on this?

Mr. Brian Purcell:

At the risk of repeating what I said in my opening statements and afterwards-----

Photo of John McGuinnessJohn McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is this a question that Mr. Purcell would not answer?

Mr. Brian Purcell:

If the question is being asked about a planning issue and when the core of the case revolves around a planning issue, I can see why it might be difficult to answer that question. With the Chairman's indulgence and even allowing for the constraints I outlined earlier, perhaps now is the time to say that if we want to discuss this, it should be discussed in private session from hereon.

Photo of John McGuinnessJohn McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

If Mr. Purcell makes the request formally, we must consider it.

Photo of Kieran O'DonnellKieran O'Donnell (Limerick City, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

In respect of chapter 15, Ms Creedon made reference to the fact that correspondence had issued. Was the Comptroller and Auditor General aware at that time that correspondence in respect of this matter had issued from the Chief State Solicitor's office?

Mr. Seamus McCarthy:

Yes, I was aware there was correspondence. There were two drafts of the report and we made certain amendments to try to address the concerns that were raised.

Photo of Kieran O'DonnellKieran O'Donnell (Limerick City, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Can we take it that when the Comptroller and Auditor General was completing chapter 15, he did not see that as in any way making it difficult for him to complete his report? The point I am making is that these matters were ongoing so effectively the Comptroller and Auditor General still felt he was able to complete his report. In that context, there is nothing that has now come into the domain bar what happened yesterday that would in any way change the type of report the Comptroller and Auditor General would have completed.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy:

No, I do not think so. The focus of the report was really to try and be forward looking and to focus on a general issue of reliance on a compliance certificate issued by a representative of the vendor, a person retained by the vendor or a lessor. I felt that the suggestion and recommendation I was making was a reasonable one to avoid a similar situation occurring in the future rather than looking into the rights and wrongs, which are matters for the courts to determine in respect of this specific case.

Photo of Kieran O'DonnellKieran O'Donnell (Limerick City, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

So we could pursue a line of questioning in that particular area which is already in the public domain?

Photo of John McGuinnessJohn McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is what we are attempting to do.

Photo of Derek NolanDerek Nolan (Galway West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have a question that will not cause any problems from that perspective. The premises that housed the Bridge Project had its rent increased from €90,000 to €125,000 per year. Alternative accommodation was sought and a lease with a payment of approximately €300,000 per year was entered into. When that lease did not work out, the project moved to a premises in Gardiner Row where it is paying €600 per month for the specific rooms. In addition, the community employment scheme will rent premises at €4,000 per year. They are currently in accommodation that is costing €10,000 per year whereas a number of years ago, it seemed prudent to go to a place that would cost €300,000 per year from a rent of €125,000 per year. Are those figures accurate and do they not show that in the first instance, an exorbitant amount of money was being paid in rent for this project?

12:00 pm

Mr. Brian Purcell:

In terms of the premises in Wolfe Tone Street?

Photo of Derek NolanDerek Nolan (Galway West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes. The Wolfe Tone Street premises was to cost approximately €300,000 a year. Currently, the project is being housed at premises costing €10,000 a year. There is a huge difference. Was it prudent and sound to enter into a €300,000 lease when the project is functioning adequately from a premises costing €10,000 per year?

Mr. Brian Purcell:

I will cover the matter briefly. The head of the Probation and Welfare Service, PWS, is in attendance and if he wishes to address the matter, I will give him the opportunity. There were limitations to the premises being used in Parnell Street. Subsequently, those premises had to be vacated due to concerns about fire and safety issues. An attempt was then made to find suitable premises in the area.

From the time the Bridge Project came into being, it was located in Dublin 1 in the vicinity of Parnell Street. There were reasons it was desirable to maintain the premises in that general area, which I am sure the head of the PWS will go into. A suitable premises was sought out. The particular premises under discussion came onto the radar. At the time, the OPW was engaged to ascertain whether the rent sought was reasonable by reference to similar accommodation in the area. It should be remembered that this was at the peak of the boom. In hindsight, it appears from the way the market has gone since that the figure was expensive in terms of both what had been paid out previously and what was actually paid out. At the time, the PWS engaged with the OPW, which was the body that gave the go-ahead. The OPW assessment was that the rent represented the lower end of the market for the type of accommodation in the area.

Mr. Vivian Geiran:

To clarify further, the Bridge Project operated between 1996 and 2012 from premises at 125 Parnell Street and then moved to Gardiner Row temporarily, which is where it was based at the time of the report. Since then, the project has moved to a different premises on Parnell Street. The rent at this last premises is €45,000 per annum. The premises at Gardiner Row, which we got at €600 per month, represented a short-term stopgap arrangement and continued only for a number of months.

Photo of Derek NolanDerek Nolan (Galway West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I do not think Dublin rents have dropped by 70% to 80% since the end of the boom, but the figure was €300,000 for premises. I accept that rents have dropped but not to the extent that €45,000 is enough.

Mr. Vivian Geiran:

We have had the premises that we rent at €45,000 per annum since well before the boom. The rent on 124 Parnell Street, which is €45,000 per annum, was in place before the peak of the boom.

Photo of Derek NolanDerek Nolan (Galway West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Why was that premises not used in the first instance?

Mr. Vivian Geiran:

Other staff were located there - namely, our north inner city probation team. We relocated that element of our staff to our offices in Haymarket to facilitate the move by the Bridge Project to that specific building.

Photo of Derek NolanDerek Nolan (Galway West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

So far this project, which is an empty unit, has cost €2 million. What further liability is the State potentially exposed to in terms of rent committed etc.?

Mr. Brian Purcell:

Where we are is that in September or November 2011, we stopped paying the rent. We have not paid any rent since then. I felt in the circumstances I would not spend further public money on a building we were not able to use.

Photo of Derek NolanDerek Nolan (Galway West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Dublin City Council indicated there was no planning permission in May 2010, which was a year before it was decided to stop paying the rent. What happened in the interim year?

Mr. Brian Purcell:

I suppose we are now straying into the area that we cannot in the circumstances-----

Photo of Derek NolanDerek Nolan (Galway West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Would the witnesses be willing to discuss the case in full in private session, or would I get the same answers?

Photo of John McGuinnessJohn McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is a matter for the witnesses. The Deputy asked a question. Maybe they will answer.

Ms Eileen Creedon:

There is only one concern, which is the integrity of the litigation. I understand completely that Deputy Nolan is frustrated about this because we are trying to balance the legitimate and important work of the committee against a set of proceedings that will be going through the courts, which will adjudicate on exactly these facts. It is a very narrow and thin line. My overriding duty relates to the remedy we have through the courts. The taxpayer would not be grateful to me if I were to prejudice that remedy in any way. That is the thin line. There are provisions in the Act about which we had an earlier discussion. They are there for a very important reason. We know why they are there. It is in order to allow matters such as this to proceed safely. I am duty bound to adhere to them and I cannot resile from them because I have carriage of the case now and must steer it through. It is a very difficult position. I understand there is a certain amount of frustration but this is not an attempt not to be helpful or not to engage with the committee. It is an attempt to maintain the integrity of the proceedings.

Photo of John McGuinnessJohn McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Deputy Nolan has asked if the questions could be answered were the witnesses to request to go into private session pursuant to Standing Order 163.

Ms Eileen Creedon:

I would have to say that the provisions in the legislation do not differentiate between public and private session and if I were in private practice, under no circumstances would I discuss strategy or facts of a case that is in live litigation. There are risks there for me and I am not protected in the legislation. For the expediency of this case and for the expediency of being co-operative in this case, these sections do not allow me to discuss these facts whether in public or private session as the legislation stands and I would not be prepared to do that at the moment. I would be as frank as I can be within constraints, if I can be. Maybe there would be a certain ease in it in terms of going on to administration issues that come out of chapter 15, but you have to appreciate the difficulties I am in.

Deputy Paschal Donohue:

A formal request was made by Mr. Brian Purcell earlier to go into private session. We should make a decision on that. While there are certain issues Ms Creedon feels unable to comment on, there may be other aspects of the case which the committee can discuss.

Photo of Kieran O'DonnellKieran O'Donnell (Limerick City, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will take a slightly different approach to looking at chapter 15 and getting some engagement on the issue.

It is taxpayers' money. This is the committee's role - the witnesses will appreciate that it is not personal. We have a job to do. Given the fact that legal proceedings were initiated yesterday, we are duty-bound to ask why.

Have changes been made to leasing procedures within the Department of Justice and Equality and the Chief State Solicitor's office? Has a revised due diligence been devised? What is the general overview? It does not touch on this case.

12:10 pm

Mr. Brian Purcell:

As the Chief State Solicitor and I have stated, we want to be as helpful as we can within the constraints. If the committee was involved in a court case and I asked it whether it needed to change its procedures, a "Yes" might be taken one way and a "No" might be taken another way. It would be reasonable to assume that, regardless of how the committee responds, it could have an impact on how it might proceed.

Photo of Kieran O'DonnellKieran O'Donnell (Limerick City, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is Mr. Purcell comfortable discussing elements of chapter 15 of the Comptroller and Auditor General's report or does he view it all as being sub judice?

Mr. Brian Purcell:

No, not all of it is out of bounds. For example, we tried to answer Deputy Nolan's question on the circumstances in which the Bridge Project Limited sought accommodation. Within the constraints to which I alluded, we can attempt to answer questions on practical elements and cost factors. I must take our legal representative's advice regarding a case that is being taken on our behalf. We might be able to answer some questions, but there are others that we cannot. Even in the questions that we answer, a point may come during our discourse beyond which we cannot go.

Photo of Kieran O'DonnellKieran O'Donnell (Limerick City, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Was a break clause included in the lease for the new premises?

Mr. Brian Purcell:

Yes, after ten years.

Photo of Kieran O'DonnellKieran O'Donnell (Limerick City, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is a 25-year lease.

Mr. Brian Purcell:

Yes.

Photo of Kieran O'DonnellKieran O'Donnell (Limerick City, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Why would the break only become available virtually half way through the lease's term? Why was there not a five-year break clause? Are there circumstances outside of the break clause in which the lease can be rescinded legally within its terms and conditions?

Mr. Brian Purcell:

I will answer the first part of the Deputy's question, but I must be careful about the second part. I will revert to the point that I made while answering another question. At the time, city centre accommodation was a seller's market.

Photo of Kieran O'DonnellKieran O'Donnell (Limerick City, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Did the Department consult the Office of Public Works, OPW, on what premises it had available?

Mr. Brian Purcell:

Yes. If memory serves correctly, it stated that the cost was at the lower end of the scale for similar accommodation in the area. It was a seller's market for such accommodation in that and other areas, although it was the only area we were considering.

Photo of Kieran O'DonnellKieran O'Donnell (Limerick City, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The new premises on Parnell Street cost €45,000 per annum.

Mr. Brian Purcell:

Yes.

Photo of Kieran O'DonnellKieran O'Donnell (Limerick City, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

For how long is that lease?

Mr. Vivian Geiran:

I am not sure if I have the detail. As far as I recall, it is quite long.

Mr. Brian Purcell:

The lease was only signed in 2000 and has a long way to run.

Photo of Kieran O'DonnellKieran O'Donnell (Limerick City, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

What was the building used for previously?

Mr. Vivian Geiran:

Our north inner city probation team has been based there since we took out the lease more than ten years ago.

Photo of Kieran O'DonnellKieran O'Donnell (Limerick City, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Does the Department expect the premises to be adequate for the probationary services that need to be provided?

Mr. Vivian Geiran:

It is adequate for what we are doing. There are always better ways of-----

Photo of Kieran O'DonnellKieran O'Donnell (Limerick City, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

How would one explain to the taxpayer that the Department has incurred expenses on the premises of €2 million so far? Is the rent €300,000 per annum?

Mr. Vivian Geiran:

Yes.

Photo of Kieran O'DonnellKieran O'Donnell (Limerick City, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

How can that be nearly seven times the rent paid for the building currently being used? How did such circumstances arise in a relatively short period?

Mr. Vivian Geiran:

The rents do not match because it is a case of apples and oranges in terms of the economic climates and the going rates for city rental properties. In addition, the premises that we were in the process of acquiring on Wolfe Tone Street were significantly larger than the premises we are using on Parnell Street in the adapted format.

Photo of Kieran O'DonnellKieran O'Donnell (Limerick City, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Would the services provided at Wolfe Tone Street have differed from the services being provided on Parnell Street?

Mr. Vivian Geiran:

Fundamentally, they would have been the same types of service, but we would have been able to offer them at an expanded location and with a greater degree of co-location. In terms of the Bridge Project and other projects like it operating on a multi-agency basis, the more that various services can be co-located, the better. Wolfe Tone Street would have given us a better co-location possibility. As well as providing services for adults, we planned to have a specific unit for younger people under the Children Act.

Photo of Kieran O'DonnellKieran O'Donnell (Limerick City, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We must question - that is our role. A building on Wolfe Tone Street was costing €300,000 to rent. Fitting it out and putting the lease in place cost a further €2 million. Did a building on Parnell Street in relatively the same area - I do not know Dublin inner city, but I assume that they are side by side - suddenly become available for one seventh of the rent? Beyond the planning issue, was this good value for the taxpayer?

Mr. Vivian Geiran:

The rents were set at different times.

Photo of Kieran O'DonnellKieran O'Donnell (Limerick City, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Am I correct in believing that the Parnell Street building was an OPW building?

Mr. Vivian Geiran:

Yes.

Photo of Kieran O'DonnellKieran O'Donnell (Limerick City, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It would also have been available in 2008.

Mr. Vivian Geiran:

Yes.

Photo of Kieran O'DonnellKieran O'Donnell (Limerick City, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I assume that its rent would have been considerably lower than €300,000.

Mr. Vivian Geiran:

That is right.

Photo of Kieran O'DonnellKieran O'Donnell (Limerick City, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

This is a question of value for the taxpayer. The witnesses will appreciate that it is not personal. In hindsight and taking all of the factors into account, was value provided for the taxpayer?

Mr. Vivian Geiran:

The premises on Wolfe Tone Street would have offered us opportunities to do other work in ways that the premises at Parnell Street do not allow. For example, we do not-----

Photo of Kieran O'DonnellKieran O'Donnell (Limerick City, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

At a cost of €255,000 extra per annum, which is a significant amount of money, plus the incremental value. That speaks for itself.

The fit-out cost €1 million. What was the professional fee of €169,000 for? I note that the VAT on creation of the lease was a straightforward fund of €61,000, while the rent management fees and service charge are €536,000. That is fine. I have taken the figures directly from the Comptroller and Auditor General's report which states that the fit-out cost €917,000 with professional fees of €169,000. What was the latter for?

12:20 pm

Mr. Brian Purcell:

They may have been professional fees that were associated with the acquisition and the fit-out for quantity surveying and mechanical and electrical contractors.

Photo of Kieran O'DonnellKieran O'Donnell (Limerick City, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Are legal fees included in the figure?

Mr. Brian Purcell:

No. They would have been covered by the Chief State Solicitor.

Photo of Kieran O'DonnellKieran O'Donnell (Limerick City, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

How did it come to light that the planning permission had not been complied with or that the clock had run out?

Mr. Brian Purcell:

In the report it indicated that Dublin City Council raised the issue.

Photo of Kieran O'DonnellKieran O'Donnell (Limerick City, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

How did that arise? What were the circumstances for Dublin City Council?

Mr. Brian Purcell:

I am not trying to be obstructive but I cannot say why Dublin City Council raised the issue.

Photo of Kieran O'DonnellKieran O'Donnell (Limerick City, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Was a telephone call made to Dublin City Council? Was it communicated in some other way? I ask Mr. Purcell to answer my question within the confines of the-----

Mr. Brian Purcell:

It is stated in the report: "It was stated by the architect to be based on an inspection of the relevant documents at the offices of Dublin City Council Planning Department."

Photo of Kieran O'DonnellKieran O'Donnell (Limerick City, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Was that by the architect?

Mr. Brian Purcell:

Sorry, I have read the wrong section. It is stated in the report that the Department "was informed at a meeting with the Dublin City Council Planning Enforcement Office ... that planning permission did not revert to the previous uses."

Photo of Kieran O'DonnellKieran O'Donnell (Limerick City, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Was that the Department of Justice and Equality engaging with Dublin City Council?

Mr. Brian Purcell:

No, it was Dublin City Council engaging with the Department.

Photo of Kieran O'DonnellKieran O'Donnell (Limerick City, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Obviously something happened to cause Dublin City Council to contact the Department.

Mr. Brian Purcell:

Presumably somebody must have raised the matter with Dublin City Council, but I cannot say.

Photo of Derek NolanDerek Nolan (Galway West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Do Ms Creedon and Mr. Purcell accept the factual accuracy of everything contained in the Comptroller and Auditor General's report? I am referring to the timeline, the circumstances and facts.

Mr. Brian Purcell:

I accept the items in the report that refer to the Department and the Probation Service.

Ms Eileen Creedon:

I have no difficulty with the chapter, just any further comment on it.

Photo of Mary Lou McDonaldMary Lou McDonald (Dublin Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Given that Ms Creedon and Mr. Purcell accept everything in the Comptroller and Auditor General's report, what is the basis for the case being taken?

Mr. Brian Purcell:

That is clearly something that we cannot discuss.

Photo of Mary Lou McDonaldMary Lou McDonald (Dublin Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I shall outline the position that we find ourselves in. Please also excuse my sniffles. I have read the chapter and have a number of great concerns about the administration of the entire project. One would assume, for example, that any State agency wishing to acquire a new premises, involving substantial work and remodelling and a change of use, would have a keen eye for the planning status of such works. I would take that as read and a standard procedural reality, but it appears it was not the case. I am more worried that today, when asked about the interaction with Dublin City Council, Mr. Purcell was unclear as to who spoke to whom or how the matter arose. That is what I heard.

Mr. Brian Purcell:

No. I want to make it clear that the only reason I said that about Dublin City Council is because I am not a member of the council. Therefore, I cannot say with any certainty how it came to proceed in a particular direction.

Photo of Mary Lou McDonaldMary Lou McDonald (Dublin Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Despite the fact the Department of Justice and Equality is embarking on a legal case and presumably there has been an institutional eye cast over the detail and the turn of events.

Mr. Brian Purcell:

Again, the debate is straying into an area where we are constrained by the proceedings.

Photo of Mary Lou McDonaldMary Lou McDonald (Dublin Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

When was it decided to take legal action?

Photo of John McGuinnessJohn McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Does Ms Creedon wish to comment?

Ms Eileen Creedon:

Chairman, I am very concerned, at this point, about the course of these discussions. I must reiterate my concerns which I have made clear to the committee by way of correspondence and orally here this morning.

Photo of Mary Lou McDonaldMary Lou McDonald (Dublin Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am simply trying to establish-----

Ms Eileen Creedon:

We answered the question already. We have been in discussion with the other side since 2011 and proceedings have now issued.

Photo of Mary Lou McDonaldMary Lou McDonald (Dublin Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Were proceedings issued yesterday?

Ms Eileen Creedon:

They did, exactly. Yes. We are now in live litigation in respect of a live dispute. My remedy is through the courts and that is my primary concern.

Photo of Mary Lou McDonaldMary Lou McDonald (Dublin Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I appreciate that, as do all other members of the committee. This is now March 2013 and there is clearly an issue for which Ms Creedon seeks a remedy through the courts, which is as it should be. We all place the interest of the taxpayer at the centre. There is also an issue for the committee, not just in terms of moneys expended or forgone in any particular arrangement but also in terms of the decision-making structures and the level of oversight that was at play. For me, the latter outweighs the issue of moneys in this particular case. It struck me, in private or public session, that we cannot have or the witnesses are not prepared to have a discussion on these matters. We need to know the precise sequence of events of the acquisition and the remodelling of the premises which were never occupied. We need to know the exact whos, whys and wheres of how that transpired because that is where the taxpayers' interest is best served.

Ms Eileen Creedon:

I would add, as I have said previously, that it is just the timing of this discussion that is of concern. There is no question of not entering into a discussion about those facts. It is the timing because they are exactly the issues which will be the subject matter of the court case.

Photo of Mary Lou McDonaldMary Lou McDonald (Dublin Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Ms Creedon. When will court proceedings conclude?

Ms Eileen Creedon:

That is the difficulty. That is the frustration and the tension between the committee and the litigation. We cannot say with certainty. They will be progressed with all expediency but I cannot tell the Deputy when proceedings will conclude.

Photo of Mary Lou McDonaldMary Lou McDonald (Dublin Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I presume Ms Creedon can give a commitment that on their conclusion, she will return here to answer all the committee's questions in some detail.

Ms Eileen Creedon:

Absolutely.

Photo of John McGuinnessJohn McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is clear from the exchange that even if we go into private session, no further information will be gathered and no questions will be answered because it is the same position. If members agree that to be the case, we will close this exchange and return to discussing the general Vote. Is that agreed? Agreed. Deputy Eoghan Murphy was in possession and had asked questions on the general vote. I call on the Deputy to continue and he has five minutes left.

12:30 pm

Photo of Eoghan MurphyEoghan Murphy (Dublin South East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

To return to the issue we were discussing before moving to that section of the Vote, when a deportation order is issued to individuals they must present themselves at a Garda station every two weeks until they are deported. However, there are cases where deportation orders are issued but the person is not deported for quite some time. I have figures from a reply to a parliamentary question in November 2012 which give a breakdown up to the end of October that year. The number of notifications of intention to deport that were issued was 1,779, while the number of persons removed by the State was 246. The number of persons who voluntarily returned to their country of origin was 387 and the number of persons granted leave to remain was 951. Looking at the asylum seeker numbers and those who are classified as asylum seekers, there are 272 people in the system for as long as seven years. I presume those are mainly people who have been issued with deportation orders but who have challenged that and requested leave to remain.

Mr. Brian Purcell:

In some cases, or in other cases they would be proceeding through the system. They might not all have necessarily got to the point where a deportation order has issued.

Photo of Eoghan MurphyEoghan Murphy (Dublin South East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Would it be the case, for example, that if the deportation order was issued and the person did not challenge it, he or she might not be deported for a period of time for cost reasons?

Mr. Brian Purcell:

I do not think so. Once all the mechanisms are exhausted and if there are no further appeals arising, deportations are effected as quickly as they can be. However, sometimes the process will go all the way and then another challenge will be brought. One cannot definitely say in a case where a deportation order is issued that it will not be challenged. However, once the process has been completely exhausted and there is no further appeal or if the deportation order is appealed, the case has been heard and the decision is that the deportation order is valid, the mechanisms begin to kick into place in terms of removing the people who are subject to the deportation orders. However, it is a slow process. All sorts of things must be taken into consideration in respect of moving people out.

Photo of Eoghan MurphyEoghan Murphy (Dublin South East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Once that decision is taken and it is not being challenged or that process is finished and the deportation order is issued, are there any instances then in which a person can ask for three more months because, for example, their children are still in education and want to complete the leaving certificate? Are all their rights gone at that stage with regard to possibly remaining the country for any additional period of time?

Mr. Brian Purcell:

There is a process where people can sometimes be granted leave to remain in certain circumstances. I can give the Deputy the figures for those. In 2012, leave to remain was granted in 564 cases. They would usually be granted for a period of three years but can be granted for a shorter period, where the Minister deems it appropriate. It would of course be subject to complying with the laws of the State.

Photo of Eoghan MurphyEoghan Murphy (Dublin South East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is the formal process of applying for leave to remain. If people are told they will be deported, they can come back into the formal system by applying for leave to remain. However, I am asking about when that process has expired and the person has not been successful and is due to be deported. When the Department moves to deport that person and it turns out that it will interfere in a significant way, for example, with somebody in education where a family is being deported, does the family have a right to put a halt to proceedings and to give them that three or six-month period before we proceed to remove them from the State?

Mr. Brian Purcell:

Sometimes a person might seek to have a decision judicially reviewed in which he or she might make a case regarding the particular circumstances. Then one can find oneself back into the running of the court case.

Photo of Eoghan MurphyEoghan Murphy (Dublin South East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It goes back into the court system.

Mr. Brian Purcell:

There have been instances where that happened.

Photo of Eoghan MurphyEoghan Murphy (Dublin South East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

On a case-by-case approach is there flexibility within the Department to say it will issue an order for deportation but that it will wait because it is aware there are particular circumstances and it would be more beneficial for the person on their return to their home country?

Mr. Brian Purcell:

Once the deportation order is made and if it is not challenged or there is no application for subsidiary protection and so forth, that is, if it has gone through every hurdle and the deportation order is still valid, it will then be effected at some point.

Photo of Eoghan MurphyEoghan Murphy (Dublin South East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

If somebody is in education, for example, will that be taken into account?

Mr. Brian Purcell:

Presumably that would have been covered. The person would have applied for subsidiary protection and they are the types of things that would be taken into consideration in those circumstances. That element of the process would consider the merits of a particular case. In a situation such as the Deputy mentions, once the full process has been exhausted and a deportation order is in place, it would proceed.

Photo of Eoghan MurphyEoghan Murphy (Dublin South East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

With regard to the process when the person is deported, do we track those instances where somebody is deported and is found to be back in the country again?

Mr. Brian Purcell:

I presume in circumstances such as that, if they have been deported and they return, they generally do not tend to-----

Photo of Eoghan MurphyEoghan Murphy (Dublin South East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Will they begin the process again?

Mr. Brian Purcell:

No. They have been deported.

Photo of Eoghan MurphyEoghan Murphy (Dublin South East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The immigration Bill is due to come before the Dáil soon. With regard to the process where somebody applies for asylum and where that is refused he or she then applies for leave to remain, is it correct that these two processes will be brought together?

Mr. Brian Purcell:

The intention is that it would streamline the process. It will be as seamless a process as possible.

Photo of Eoghan MurphyEoghan Murphy (Dublin South East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Are there any changes anticipated with regard to that EU directive in 2003 that we did not sign?

Mr. Brian Purcell:

Which one was that?

Photo of Eoghan MurphyEoghan Murphy (Dublin South East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The one that allows somebody to work after 12 months.

Mr. Brian Purcell:

No, there are no changes planned in that respect.

Photo of John McGuinnessJohn McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The asylum and immigration system costs us €140 million per year. Does that include the payments to appeals commissioners, or is that the correct title?

Mr. Brian Purcell:

That includes everything.

Photo of John McGuinnessJohn McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

How many appeals commissioners are there? Do you have a list of the payments made to them?

Mr. Brian Purcell:

I have a list with me. There are 20 members of the Refugee Appeals Tribunal and the total fees paid in 2012 were €324,395.

Photo of John McGuinnessJohn McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Can you give us information on the highest earner?

Mr. Brian Purcell:

The amount paid to the highest earner was €43,733.

Photo of John McGuinnessJohn McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

What was the average payment? Can we have a copy of that list?

Mr. Brian Purcell:

Yes, we will give the committee a copy. The payments ranged from €43,000 to the lowest payment which was €1,358.

12:40 pm

Photo of John McGuinnessJohn McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

In the case of the person receiving €43,000, how often does he or she sit on an appeal? How is the payment based?

Mr. Brian Purcell:

The payment is made up on a per case basis.

Photo of John McGuinnessJohn McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

How many cases does that person handle for €42,000?

Mr. Brian Purcell:

Remuneration is paid in accordance with the following fee structure: the fee for substantive cases with an oral hearing is €529; the fee for substantive cases determined on the basis of the file is €276; the fee for accelerated appeals on papers is €276; and where the case is withdrawn or where the applicant fails to show the fee is €152. The fee of €42,000 represents a number of cases dealt with by that person during the year.

Photo of John McGuinnessJohn McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

What are the qualifications required?

Mr. Brian Purcell:

They are all barristers and solicitors, with five years' practice.

Photo of John McGuinnessJohn McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Can we have a list of their names?

Mr. Brian Purcell:

Yes.

Photo of John McGuinnessJohn McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

In terms of the properties originally leased or purchased, dating back to the high numbers of 2000, when the Department was forced to buy property all over the country, we had a hearing that showed some of the properties were not used. Are any of those properties still on the Department's books? Have the leases been discontinued? Are all of the properties in use?

Mr. Brian Purcell:

All the properties we have are in use. We have a standing element of flexibility where we try to keep 10% of capacity free. All of the accommodation centres are in use. Through the years, we no longer have some that we used to have but all of those that we have are currently in use. We have 35 accommodation centres at the moment. In 2010 we had 46.

Photo of John McGuinnessJohn McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

My question is whether the 35 properties are all in use.

Mr. Brian Purcell:

Yes, every one of them is in use and, while we have a 10% capacity flexibility, that does not mean that three of them are not in use. Within each centre, we have that flexibility.

Photo of John McGuinnessJohn McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

What is the cost of those properties per year?

Mr. Brian Purcell:

It is just under €60 million in 2012.

Photo of John McGuinnessJohn McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

If the properties are leased, they must have break clauses and ways and means of ending the lease should that be required.

Mr. Brian Purcell:

The correct figure is €62 million in 2012. I will have to check individual cases but I can send the committee a note on the outline of it. Does the Chairman want a breakdown of each centre, the terms and conditions and the cost?

Photo of John McGuinnessJohn McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes.

I agree generally with what Deputy Nolan said about the system. It may be the best the Department can do with the allocation it has and, bearing in mind the draw factor to which Mr. Purcell referred, it is absolutely appalling that some people are left locked in that system for years. It has definitely affected their families, their mental health and how they view things. To condemn them for that period of time while not allowing them to do anything or contribute in any way is a policy matter but the system, in dealing with these cases, should have recommended greater efficiencies to achieve an answer, whether to remain or to go. That should be our target. I accept that Mr. Purcell cannot give specific targets but that should be a general one.

Mr. Brian Purcell:

I will not detain the discussion or cover policy angles but we hope the immigration Bill will result in a more streamlined process. The complex nature of many of these cases means they tend to go through the full run of the court system.

Photo of John McGuinnessJohn McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am talking about the years people spend in the Department's system.

Mr. Brian Purcell:

One of the reasons they spend so long in the system is the various challenges to the elements in the process.

Photo of John McGuinnessJohn McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That said, they spend a lot of time in the system. This is true of the cases I am aware of and applies in some cases to those without judicial review. It is a policy matter but greater efforts should be made to provide an earlier reply. I do not buy the idea that many cases are complex and that complexity is at issue.

Mr. Brian Purcell:

I appreciate what the Chairman is saying. It might well be the case that if they were to spend a shorter period of time, they would be gone completely. Challenges are brought to various elements and our hope is that the new Bill will streamline the process and make it more seamless-----

Photo of John McGuinnessJohn McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

A bit of humanity and compassion would not go astray when the Department is preparing the Bill.

My next questions concern tribunals and property. The Department contributed €2.8 million to the project of the State Pathologist's office. The building has been demolished.

Mr. Brian Purcell:

I think that is the case. We entered into a joint project with Dublin City Council. A tender was issued and the contract was awarded to Michael McNamara. That proceeded down a particular route and then NAMA appointed a receiver to the Michael McNamara company in November 2010. As a result, all construction work on the project ceased. That gave rise to a complex legal procurement issue and other considerations. By that time, we had contributed almost €2.8 million to the project. At the time, the capital resources available to the Department were being cut and the comprehensive review of expenditure was carried out. As a result, we did not have the money to proceed even if we had been in a position to retender to seek a contractor to complete the process.

Photo of John McGuinnessJohn McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We know what gave rise to the legal complexities. What caused a building project not to continue and to be demolished?

Mr. Brian Purcell:

The question was whether we would go to the next person, the unsuccessful bidder for the first contract. We were told we could not do so and that, if we were proceeding, we would have to go through a new process. Having reached that point, we did not have the money.

We could not tender because we no longer had the funding.

12:50 pm

Acting Chairman:

What was the overall cost of the joint venture with Dublin City Council?

Mr. Brian Purcell:

It would have cost between €14 million and €15 million.

Photo of John McGuinnessJohn McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

How was it decided not to pursue anything and to write off the €2.8 million?

Mr. Brian Purcell:

We had little option because we simply did not have the money to proceed. Our capital budget had been cut.

Photo of John McGuinnessJohn McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I understand that but who made the decision to write off the €2.8 million? It had already been spent and therefore the Department had to be conscious of the fact that much money had been put into it. I presume Dublin City Council had bought in as well. How much did it spend?

Mr. Brian Purcell:

It put in roughly 30% of the overall costs while we had put in 70%. The council's contribution was about €1 million.

Photo of John McGuinnessJohn McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

A total of €3.8 million was spent on the project. When was it decided not to proceed at all and to lose that €3.8 million? That money was spent on construction. Were there legal costs attached to that?

Mr. Brian Purcell:

There would have been some legal costs but they would have been included. The figure is the total for everything.

Photo of John McGuinnessJohn McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

So the total figure amounts to €3.8 million? At what stage was it decided not proceed?

Mr. Brian Purcell:

When we realised we did not have the money to pay for it.

Photo of John McGuinnessJohn McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

When was that?

Mr. Brian Purcell:

Late in 2011, when the comprehensive review of expenditure was carried out.

Photo of John McGuinnessJohn McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

At the end of 2011, the Department looked at the €3.8 million that had been spent and believed it was not worth pursuing or did not have the money to pursue it?

Mr. Brian Purcell:

We did not have the money, it is as simple as that.

Photo of John McGuinnessJohn McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

So it made sense for the Department to write off the €2.8 million and for Dublin City Council to write off €1 million?

Mr. Brian Purcell:

At the time we simply did not have enough money to pay for this. The money was not in our capital budget. Subsequently some consideration was given to including the project in the PPP stream that is currently moving along. It was decided that would not be an appropriate project for the PPP process. We did not have any choice about the decision to write the money off because we had to stop. We did not have the money to proceed.

Photo of John McGuinnessJohn McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Was that bad planning on the part of the Department? In the course of 2011, the decision was made to write of €2.8 million and €1 million even though the Department was aware since 2008 that there were serious difficulties with the public finances and that even the €2.8 million would have been hard to come by. In spite of that, the Department proceeded. Who planned the spending of this money? The Department does not seem to be very good with buildings.

Mr. Brian Purcell:

The tender went out and work was due to start on the site in 2010, with construction to be completed by 2011. Then, when only the initial work had been done and the foundations and part of the shell of the building were up, McNamara Construction went into receivership and that was the end. We could not proceed.

Photo of John McGuinnessJohn McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I understand that but I cannot understand how a Department can look into a site that cost €2.8 million, and cost Dublin City Council a further €1 million-----

Mr. Brian Purcell:

The site did not cost us anything.

Photo of John McGuinnessJohn McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am not referring to the site but about the money that was spent on it. When I think how hard it is for people to pay their taxes and the work that must be done to do it, I find it hard to get my head around the State writing off €2.8 million and €1 million, .

Mr. Brian Purcell:

Like the Chairman, we are also concerned about the loss to the taxpayer. Money was spent on that project and has effectively been written off because of how it proceeded but I do not know what we could have done differently.

Photo of John McGuinnessJohn McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am struggling to get my head around this because I have watched the Department of Justice and Equality spend money on sites and projects that have in some cases never materialised. Going back as far as 2000 to the money that was spent on leases, the purchase of property, settlements with builders, the latest court case and now this building shows a history of loose management for a considerable number of properties.

Mr. Brian Purcell:

I do not agree on this count. I am not going to go back over the history of every project that would have begun, many of them were before my time in the job. On this project, however, I am not sure how we could have managed it any better in the circumstances. The contract was awarded and through no fault of our own, the company that was awarded the contract went into receivership. It was not in a position to proceed with the project and by the time we were at a point where if we had gone to tender to engage another company to complete the project, we did not have the money because our capital budget had been cut. We could not proceed. It was not a case that we walked away from a project, writing it off because we had made that decision. We had no option.

Photo of John McGuinnessJohn McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Can the Secretary General not put himself in the shoes of the taxpayer and look at this €2.8 million and €1 million? He can explain it away all he likes but when I put this along side the history I have seen from the Department, whether before Mr. Purcell's time or not, going back to 2000, and the leases for properties that were never used, property we discussed earlier that is now subject to a court case, and this project, it all adds up to a shocking amount of money. That is my point. I understand the Department has a case to make in saying it had no money but I would have planned this differently if I had been there when the €2.8 million was being spent, along with the €1 million from Dublin City Council.

Mr. Brian Purcell:

How could we have planned it that the construction company we are awarding the contract would go bust? If we had planned that we would not have engaged that company.

Photo of John McGuinnessJohn McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It should have been taken into consideration.

Mr. Brian Purcell:

That it might happen?

Photo of John McGuinnessJohn McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

No, the fact that at that time, the Department was entering a contract when the country was facing an economic crisis.

Mr. Brian Purcell:

So we should not have proceeded?

Photo of John McGuinnessJohn McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I understand Mr. Purcell has a case to make but I have a difficulty with understanding that €2.8 million on the back of the history of spend within that Department and how it does business.

Mr. Brian Purcell:

I am not saying we are perfect.

Photo of John McGuinnessJohn McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Certainly not.

Mr. Brian Purcell:

I do not accept, however, that we have been cavalier. The implication is that down through the years we had some sort of a cavalier attitude towards these projects.

Photo of John McGuinnessJohn McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I invite Mr. Purcell to read the Comptroller and Auditor General's report on the various properties the Department purchased or entered into leases on since 2000 and then come back and discuss being cavalier. Some of the properties were then off-loaded for small amounts to the OPW or the HSE. There are examples of that throughout the country and bearing that in mind, the recent discussion we had with the Chief State Solicitor's office and now the Department on this property, it all goes to show that the Department could manage its affairs better.

Mr. Brian Purcell:

Like everyone else, we could all improve and should always try to improve the way we do business.

That is what we do at all times. I hope this will not happen again. I will certainly do everything during my stewardship to ensure it does not happen again.

1:00 pm

Photo of John McGuinnessJohn McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is my point. It has happened before under somebody else. It also happened in the case of the other building, which was raised earlier, as well as this building. I am simply making that point. The reports from the Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General on this and other buildings, which may have happened before Mr. Purcell's time, bear that out.

There should be far greater control on the spending of public money on projects. I am sure there is no single person who will be convinced there were no plans for the overall costs of a building on which €3.8 million was spent. There must have been a plan to get funds after €2.8 million was spent and arrangements must have been in place to fund the difference, notwithstanding the arrangements and the difficulty experienced with the contractor, who walked away with €3.8 million.

I will now deal with the cost of tribunals. How much will the tribunals cost this year? Section 6.4 the Comptroller and Auditor General states there are ten.

Mr. Brian Purcell:

I will give the Chairman the figures for the allocation provided, but it will depend on how things proceed and whether the bills for legal costs are submitted. The allocation for this year is €9 million. We spent just over €6 million last year. What we spend depends on when the bills are presented.

Photo of John McGuinnessJohn McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

What was the figure for last year?

Mr. Brian Purcell:

It was just over €6 million.

Photo of John McGuinnessJohn McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have a list of tribunals, the Morris tribunal has cost the State to date in excess of €60 million. A report of the Comptroller and Auditor General suggested in December 2008 the Morris tribunal would cost between €77 million and €79 million. Will it run to that figure?

Mr. Brian Purcell:

Our estimate is that it will run to €70 million, depending on the third party costs.

Photo of John McGuinnessJohn McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

When are we likely to see the final outcome?

Mr. Brian Purcell:

We think we will pay out more this year and perhaps some more bills will be presented next year as well.

Photo of John McGuinnessJohn McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

What has the Barr tribunal cost since 2011?

Mr. Brian Purcell:

The Barr tribunal is completely finished and all expenditure has been paid.

Photo of John McGuinnessJohn McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

What is the final figure for the Barr tribunal?

Mr. Brian Purcell:

I think the figure is €20.7 million.

Photo of John McGuinnessJohn McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is the final figure. What is the position on the Criminal Injuries Compensation Tribunal?

Mr. Brian Purcell:

That is an ongoing scheme

Photo of John McGuinnessJohn McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

What is the position on the Smithwick tribunal?

Mr. Brian Purcell:

The Smithwick tribunal is still sitting.

Photo of John McGuinnessJohn McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It cost €9.3 million in 2011. What is the figure to date?

Mr. Brian Purcell:

We hope the Smithwick tribunal will be wrapped up shortly. The figure for last year was about €1 million. To date we have spent in the range of €10.5 million to €11 million. We hope it will conclude this year, but we are not entirely sure what the final level of expenditure will be.

Photo of John McGuinnessJohn McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It has been running since 2005.

Mr. Brian Purcell:

As I said we have €9 million, which is to cover the cost of all the tribunals. We hope the Smithwick tribunal will finish this year. It depends on the bills that we have not covered and when they come in. We paid out approximately €1 million last year.

Photo of John McGuinnessJohn McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The next one is the Dublin tribunal in relation to Archdiocese of Dublin and the Diocese of Cloyne which cost €8.75 million in 2011.

Mr. Brian Purcell:

That is practically completed. I do not think there will be too many more outgoings on it.

Photo of John McGuinnessJohn McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

One of the last four is the location of victims remains commission.

Mr. Brian Purcell:

That is ongoing, but the expenditure on it is not that significant.

Photo of John McGuinnessJohn McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Okay. I now call Deputy O'Donnell.

Photo of Kieran O'DonnellKieran O'Donnell (Limerick City, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Garda vetting is a major issue. People cannot take up certain jobs without having Garda clearance. Has the issue of resources for this work been re-examined or has the process been streamlined so that a person who has been vetted and approved may use his or her certificate of Garda clearance for a range of jobs? I have no doubt that Mr. Purcell is well aware that Garda clearance is a requirement for anybody doing voluntary work and is making the running of voluntary organisations difficult on a practical level and is killing them.

Mr. Brian Purcell:

A considerable amount of work must be done in respect of vetting applications.

Photo of Kieran O'DonnellKieran O'Donnell (Limerick City, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I do not wish to interfere in any way with the integrity of the process.

Mr. Brian Purcell:

Undoubtedly it will increase when the legislation is enacted. We are conscious of the impact it has on employers and on voluntary organisations. We have recently allocated an additional 25 staff to the vetting bureau.

Photo of Kieran O'DonnellKieran O'Donnell (Limerick City, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

In Thurles?

Photo of Kieran O'DonnellKieran O'Donnell (Limerick City, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes the vetting bureau is based in Thurles and we hope that will help ease the burden in the amount of work involved. We anticipate the enactment of the legislation will increase the amount of work that will come into the station.

Photo of Kieran O'DonnellKieran O'Donnell (Limerick City, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Vetting is very important but I suggest that vetting could be used for a number of purposes. Will Mr. Purcell consider whether vetting will be required for every single thing a person is involved in or whether the process could be streamlined?

I wish to raise the issue of payments for criminal legal aid? I note from a recent media report that the payments have been reduced by more than 10% from €56 million to €50 million between 2011 and 2012. I accept the requirement for due process, but in cases where criminals have assets are there procedures to ensure they would make a contribution to the legal fees of their counsel? What percentage of individuals have availed of legal aid on multiple occasions?

Will Mr. Purcell indicate the greatest number of times a criminal has used access to-----

1:10 pm

Mr. Brian Purcell:

I am not sure if I have a figure for the highest number of times, but we are aware of cases in which people came before the courts on a number of different occasions and have had legal aid on each occasion.

Photo of Kieran O'DonnellKieran O'Donnell (Limerick City, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am not referring to persons of no means but individuals who have significant assets. While everyone is entitled to due process, I have an issue if individuals who have assets gain from this entitlement, as it comes at the expense of hard-pressed taxpayers and law-abiding citizens. Fairness should be applied to the individual who is being represented and to ordinary people. My reference to taxpayers includes people who are unemployed and receiving the benefits of their PRSI contributions to the tax system.

Mr. Brian Purcell:

I do not need to explain the position. Individuals have a constitutional right to be represented - one has the presumption of innocence, etc. - and it is up to the court to decide whether to grant legal aid. Currently, there is no legal provision in place to recoup legal aid fees or reduce, for example, an individual's social welfare payments on the basis that he or she has been granted criminal legal aid. It is a question of striking a balance between the-----

Photo of Kieran O'DonnellKieran O'Donnell (Limerick City, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

If someone is before the Criminal Assets Bureau and courts, can the Department place an attachment on his or her assets to pay for his or her legal counsel?

Mr. Brian Purcell:

Not really.

Photo of Kieran O'DonnellKieran O'Donnell (Limerick City, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Why not, given that the CAB and courts are both arms of the State? The position seems ironic.

Mr. Brian Purcell:

Initial work has started on a Bill to strengthen the system of granting legal aid and transferring responsibilities to the Legal Aid Board. The amended Bill is likely to include provisions that will try to better regulate the way the scheme operates in terms of verifying statements of means of applicants and-----

Photo of Kieran O'DonnellKieran O'Donnell (Limerick City, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

In most cases the person will not have means, but in certain cases the person has clearly visible assets which come within the scope of the Criminal Assets Bureau. Rather than providing free legal aid, why can the State not place an attachment or lien on the assets to pay for counsel?

Mr. Brian Purcell:

In a nutshell, under the scheme that has operated since the Criminal Assets Bureau was established, there is a slight problem in the sense that barristers, solicitors, etc., cannot be paid from what are regarded as the proceeds of crime. The Deputy will see the difficulty that arises where the CAB is going after the proceeds of crime and the legal representatives may not be paid from the proceeds of crime. This is one of the reasons the legal aid scheme covers cases going before the CAB. In addition, if one looks back at the CAB and proceeds of crime legislation, which is highly innovative and based on the reversal of the burden of proof, etc., we must also be careful that nothing is done to impinge on the rights of people whose assets are being confiscated in those circumstances. As I stated, this is complicated by the particular fact that legal representatives cannot accept-----

Photo of Kieran O'DonnellKieran O'Donnell (Limerick City, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Ordinary people find it unfair that the system effectively gives free legal aid to people who may have accrued means through ill gotten gains. While I understand Mr. Purcell's point, there must be another way.

Mr. Brian Purcell:

Initial work has started on introducing a provision to enable us to recoup some fees in cases where someone has been convicted and is, for example, the subject of a CAB order. Again, however, there is a difficulty with legal representation.

Photo of Kieran O'DonnellKieran O'Donnell (Limerick City, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes, I understand. My final question is addressed to Ms Creedon. The Office of the Chief State Solicitor is very busy. Is it correct that the issue of counsel fees has not been addressed?

Photo of John McGuinnessJohn McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

This has been discussed.

Photo of Kieran O'DonnellKieran O'Donnell (Limerick City, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have a particular question, but I do not wish to go over old ground.

Photo of John McGuinnessJohn McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We discussed the reduction in fees.

Photo of Kieran O'DonnellKieran O'Donnell (Limerick City, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Has the number of barristers involved in the free legal aid service been discussed? If not, how many are involved in it and what are the highest fees paid to individual barristers? I ask Ms Creedon to explain how the system works.

Ms Eileen Creedon:

As the Deputy may be aware, there is on the website of the Office of the Attorney General a provision for making application. Barristers can apply to be put on panels of counsel through a process that is set out on the website. The Attorney General creates various panels of counsel depending on expertise and experience. The statutory framework that underpins nomination-----

Photo of Kieran O'DonnellKieran O'Donnell (Limerick City, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Attorney General selects the panels.

Ms Eileen Creedon:

There is a statutory provision that underpins this, namely, the 1974 Prosecution of Offences Act, which applies to both the Attorney General and the director, under which they are obliged, as far as possible, to spread nominations across as wide a range of counsel as they can. Panels of counsel are created and nominated for various areas of work. That is the basic way the system works at the moment.

Photo of Kieran O'DonnellKieran O'Donnell (Limerick City, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

How many counsel are on the panels?

Ms Eileen Creedon:

I do not have the numbers with me. Nearly all barristers who apply through the website are put on panels of work-----

Photo of Kieran O'DonnellKieran O'Donnell (Limerick City, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

What is the average payment made to barristers? What were the three highest payments made in 2012?

Ms Eileen Creedon:

A number of parliamentary questions have been tabled on this issue and all the information is in the public domain. I do not have information on the top earners at the moment. The nomination of counsel is kept under review between my office and the Office of the Attorney General to ensure, as far as possible, that there is a spread of nominations. However, the Attorney General obviously needs to have discretion to nominate particular counsel for particular types of case from time to time.

Photo of Mary Lou McDonaldMary Lou McDonald (Dublin Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Will Mr. Purcell outline what, if any, measures have been taken to set the scene for the wind-down of direct provision? He will be aware that the Government made a commitment to do this.

Mr. Brian Purcell:

In a nutshell, any change in the system will be contingent on the introduction of the immigration Bill. Hopefully, when this legislation is enacted, it should put us in a position in which we will be able to gradually reduce the numbers in the asylum process. This in turn would enable us to reduce and gradually move away from the direct provision system.

It should facilitate speedier processing of cases. If the Deputy is asking for a target date as to when there will be no more direct provision, I cannot give that at this point in time.

1:20 pm

Photo of Mary Lou McDonaldMary Lou McDonald (Dublin Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am conscious of the forthcoming legislation which, I understand, is to streamline and increase the efficiency of the process which would be welcome. Outside of that, is the Secretary General saying the Department has not taken any other initiatives and that nothing else has been done to pave the way for an end to direct provision? He will be aware that a clear commitment was made.

Mr. Brian Purcell:

Arrangements are under way to put in place a panel with legal expertise that will assist us in processing a cohort of cases. In turn, that should speed up the overall process. Until such time as the Bill is enacted I think direct provision will continue for some time to come. I would not like to mislead anybody by saying that I think that will change dramatically over a short period.

Photo of Mary Lou McDonaldMary Lou McDonald (Dublin Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Let me put the question in a slightly different way. Even with a new legislative framework that is working to its absolute optimum, there will be circumstances where there will be a lag, some form of delay, after an application is made and the time required to process it. That can vary depending on the specifics of the case. Am I correct in saying that a system other than direct provision will be envisaged for those persons who are in the course of their application?

Mr. Brian Purcell:

I would not necessarily think so.

Photo of Mary Lou McDonaldMary Lou McDonald (Dublin Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is not the Secretary General's understanding that the objective is to wind down the system of direct provision.

Mr. Brian Purcell:

It is. As people move out of the system there would be an accompanying winding down. If the Deputy is asking in the event of the legislation being enacted if we will immediately take everyone who is left out of direct provision, I cannot say "Yes" to that question.

Photo of Mary Lou McDonaldMary Lou McDonald (Dublin Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The commitment from Government is very clear. The direct provision is identified as problematic as a place of detention for people in the asylum process. We all know the new legislation is on the way. When the new legislative mechanisms are in place and assuming they work well and efficiently, what is the alternative system other than direct provision that will be in place for persons who come into the system? Is the Secretary General simply telling me there will be a change in the legislation but direct provision will still be the system in place, albeit with smaller numbers?

Mr. Brian Purcell:

I think, certainly in the short term, that will be the case. It would appear that the options are limited. People would be in either direct provision or in another system outside direct provision.

Photo of Mary Lou McDonaldMary Lou McDonald (Dublin Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Has the Secretary General explored what that other system outside direct provision might be?

Mr. Brian Purcell:

If accommodation has to be provided for people and if it is not provided by RIA it will have to be provided by local authorities. That is the position.

Photo of Mary Lou McDonaldMary Lou McDonald (Dublin Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

What efforts has the Department made to map out alternative provision models?

Mr. Brian Purcell:

We have not looked-----

Photo of Mary Lou McDonaldMary Lou McDonald (Dublin Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Has the Minister asked the Secretary General to do so?

Mr. Brian Purcell:

-----in any great detail at the alternatives. Our objective is to get the Bill enacted and to streamline the process, thereby coming to conclusions on cases and gradually the numbers will decline. The gradual reduction in numbers should also facilitate an improvement which, we hope, will enable us to facilitate some improvements in the system in place. If the Deputy is asking if we are considering a situation whereby people would be removed from direct provision and put in some alternative system, at the moment we do not have any plans to do so. After the Bill is enacted, we will obviously look at how it is operating, the impact it is having and if there are problems how they can be resolved. If there are roadblocks we will have to ascertain how to proceed as it is rolled out. We may come to a point where we will say there is possibly another solution but we are not there now.

Photo of Mary Lou McDonaldMary Lou McDonald (Dublin Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Has the Minister asked the officials in the Department to look at the alternative models to direct provision?

Mr. Brian Purcell:

To look at alternative models? Not at the moment.

Photo of Mary Lou McDonaldMary Lou McDonald (Dublin Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The officials have not been asked to do that?

Mr. Brian Purcell:

No.

Photo of Mary Lou McDonaldMary Lou McDonald (Dublin Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is strange because it is certainly something that Government backbenchers assume is on the agenda for change. I am really disappointed to hear that.

Mr. Brian Purcell:

What I said was that when the legislation is enacted-----

Photo of Mary Lou McDonaldMary Lou McDonald (Dublin Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I hear the point about the legislation and I understand that the legislation if it is more efficient will reduce the numbers in direct provision. I have heard that but I am asking a different question.

Mr. Brian Purcell:

What I also said-----

Photo of Mary Lou McDonaldMary Lou McDonald (Dublin Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There will always be people in the system. My question is whether the State envisages a new system other than direct provision for providing for these people while their applications are in process. The Secretary General is telling me that he has not been asked to look at that.

Mr. Brian Purcell:

What I am saying is we do not have any plans at the moment to do that. When the legislation is enacted and rolled out we will obviously review it in the round. When we have a better idea of how it is operating, as it is a substantial undertaking and will take some time to bed down, we will consider what is the best way forward. There is little point in examining a system that, despite the faults, is the best possible solution to the present situation. As the position progresses, it may be that there is a better solution to fit the needs. In those circumstances we will be looking at it but we are a distance away from that.

Photo of Mary Lou McDonaldMary Lou McDonald (Dublin Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

What is the Secretary General's understanding of the programme for Government commitments around direct provision?

Mr. Brian Purcell:

My understanding is that we move that forward and the immigration Bill is the cornerstone of how we will move that forward. When that process beds down and delivers on what we hope it will deliver, a more streamlined and seamless process, in turn that will have an impact on the issues.

Photo of Mary Lou McDonaldMary Lou McDonald (Dublin Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

So the Secretary General does not understand there is a Government commitment to the ending of direct provision as the system operated by the State?

Mr. Brian Purcell:

Yes I do understand that but I am trying to explain how we may get to that point. If the Deputy wants me to say that is not what is happening, I will not say that. We have to deal with the practicalities of the situation. We are moving in that direction and the immigration Bill is the mechanism that will get us there.

Photo of Mary Lou McDonaldMary Lou McDonald (Dublin Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have not disputed that.

Mr. Brian Purcell:

When that beds down-----

Photo of Mary Lou McDonaldMary Lou McDonald (Dublin Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes.

Mr. Brian Purcell:

-----we can look at what is in front of us at that point and then start talking about moving towards an alternative.

Photo of Mary Lou McDonaldMary Lou McDonald (Dublin Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Can I make a suggestion? The commitment in the programme for Government is very clear. The new legislation is absolutely necessary and required and, I hope, will be fit for purpose. All things being equal, that should reduce the waiting time for applicants, all of which would be tremendously welcome. That point has been well made. Given that the commitment is to move away from direct provision, not just to reduce the numbers in direct provision, would it not be wise for the Department to consider what the alternative model might look like, its shape, and the cost implications?

I do not get the sense the Minister has had that conversation or planned that with the Secretary General.

1:30 pm

Mr. Brian Purcell:

What I am saying is that this will happen in stages. Before we can move away from direct provision, we must first reduce the numbers. I suppose we could just take the numbers in direct provision and move them out of it, but we are not in a position to do that.

Photo of Mary Lou McDonaldMary Lou McDonald (Dublin Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Has the Department done the costings on that? Does it have the figures on what that would cost?

Mr. Brian Purcell:

We did the value for money report and it indicated there was no way we could introduce a system that could be run more cost effectively. My recollection is that direct provision costs the State one third less than it would cost another system to deliver. As Accounting Officer for the Department of Justice and Equality, I know that if all the direct provision costs in my Department's Vote were gone, there would be substantial savings in the Vote. This would be most welcome from my perspective, but the result would be that the overall cost to the State would be significantly greater than the cost of direct provision to the Department currently. Before we can get out of direct provision, we must reduce the numbers in it. If we were to try to do that very quickly or any time soon, we would not have a seamless transition and there would be massive costs involved.

Photo of Mary Lou McDonaldMary Lou McDonald (Dublin Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I appreciate that. Obviously, the objective of the legislation is to ensure that the current long and torturous procedure for applicants is shortened, mitigated and made more transparent, fair and timely. However, I am concerned that if the settled position is to move away from direct provision, it would be a matter of good planning that the Department, under the direction of the Secretary General, would be considering the various models and planning for that change. I sense that is not the case. Therefore, this does not strike an optimistic note for those of us who would wish to see an end to direct provision.

Mr. Brian Purcell:

When we are closer to being able to say when direct provision may end and have a close timeframe for that, we will be able to do the detailed planning on that quickly. When this issue came to the Department first, we had to move extremely quickly to deal with it. This is not something that will require a two-year planning process. When we arrive at a point when we can see this will happen soon or that we will be in a position to move on it, we will start looking at the detailed planning aspects of it.

Photo of Mary Lou McDonaldMary Lou McDonald (Dublin Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

So, the Secretary General is satisfied that is the case. Has the Minister discussed this with the Secretary General?

Mr. Brian Purcell:

He has discussed the immigration Bill. As the Deputy knows, he is committed to moving this forward. Although it is not without difficulty, it is long overdue and the Minister is committed to delivering on it. We will deliver on that.

Photo of Mary Lou McDonaldMary Lou McDonald (Dublin Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The second issue I wish to raise relates to separated children who have gone missing while in State care. Barnardos' figures reflect that 513 separated children -----

Mr. Brian Purcell:

Sorry, I did not hear what the Deputy said.

Photo of Mary Lou McDonaldMary Lou McDonald (Dublin Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have the 2011 figures from Barnardos indicating that of the 513 children who have gone missing while in State care, the whereabouts of 440 of them remain unknown. Would Mr. Purcell like to comment on that? Are those figures correct? This issue obviously relates to the asylum process.

Mr. Brian Purcell:

Will the Deputy please repeat her question?

Photo of Mary Lou McDonaldMary Lou McDonald (Dublin Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

How many separated children have gone missing? How is it that according to Barnardos' 2011 figures some 440 of them are unaccounted for? Where are those children?

Mr. Brian Purcell:

I will have to come back to the Deputy with those figures. I do not have any information on that with me. Can I come back to the Deputy on that?

Photo of Mary Lou McDonaldMary Lou McDonald (Dublin Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes, but while the Secretary General is here, will he give me some response on this issue? This issue has been in the public domain, albeit intermittently. If that number of minors from other categories of society were on the missing list, I cannot imagine Mr. Purcell having to forage through papers to find information for detail on them.

Mr. Brian Purcell:

I am not sure whether this is a matter for us or for the HSE.

Photo of Mary Lou McDonaldMary Lou McDonald (Dublin Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Mr. Purcell should be able to tell me that.

Mr. Brian Purcell:

I think this may be a matter for the HSE, but I will check it out and come back to the Deputy on it.

Photo of Mary Lou McDonaldMary Lou McDonald (Dublin Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

This is obviously a matter for the HSE, but I think it is also a matter for the Department of Justice and Equality. These young people and children go missing, yet it does not seem to be a matter of concern for many. I would appreciate it if Mr. Purcell, as the top person in his Department, came back to us on this with all of the detail he has and the most up-to-date figures. I would appreciate hearing his understanding of the situation and what interaction his Department has, if any, with the HSE in respect of these children. Is it involved in their processing when they initially land in the State and in their treatment thereafter? With regard to those still on the missing list, what contribution does the Department make towards establishing their whereabouts?

Mr. Brian Purcell:

To make a general point on that, if a family or parent with children is refused leave to land here because they have no status in this country and if they do not claim asylum and it is not possible to return them immediately, provision can be made by a community welfare officer, through the homeless service, for emergency accommodation if needed. However, we do not accommodate individual families which do not have any status or permission to be in this State. I will check this matter out and will get back to the Deputy on it.

Photo of John McGuinnessJohn McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the witnesses for attending. Is it agreed we dispose of Votes 13 and 19 and leave chapter 15 open for further discussion? Agreed.

The witnesses withdrew.

The committee adjourned at 1.50 p.m. until 10 a.m. on Thursday, 18 April 2013.