Previously and over the course of a number of hours last week, we spoke a lot about the asylum application process itself and the need for transparency in that area. We spent a lot of time today and last week as well on the previous amendment that was taken in relation to the community impact assessments, which the Minister did not accept. Again, that was about transparency and making sure communities were at least consulted and had a voice in relation to what was happening in their communities. We have a similar amendment here in regard to contracts, subcontracts, financial schedules and so on. At the heart of this is a small number of people who have become very wealthy on the back of providing IPAS accommodation. I agree with Deputy Kelly. It is not that we want more private accommodation; it is happening. I certainly support more public provision. That is where we should be and it was something the Government committed to before. The Minister has talked about this in the past himself when he said some progress is being made but I can tell him that people see it themselves. They know what is happening in their own communities, where they see people who are making huge amounts of money out of this. It is accommodation that, in some cases, is hotels in areas where we know that is not the best way to provide IPAS accommodation. In other areas, it is accommodation that is not really fit for purpose but somebody saw an opportunity to make money. There is anger about the level of profiteering and the scale of profits being made by these individuals. Notwithstanding all that and whatever views we might have of using such accommodation - and I agree with previous speakers that public provision is always best, rather than lining the pockets of these wealthy people - unfortunately it is happening. Unfortunately, it is a feature of this Government providing IPAS accommodation and there is no transparency. What an Teachta Carthy is trying to do through this amendment is to bring some level of transparency whereby we and the public are aware of exactly what is being paid. As the amendment states, "The Minister shall publish all contracts". Is there a reason that cannot be done? On subcontracts, is there a reason that cannot be done? On financial schedules, is there a reason that cannot be done, or in regard to performance reports and compliance assessments relating to accommodation, which would surely benefit everybody? In life and politics, we know that transparency protects everybody and a lack of transparency is our enemy. We have seen that on this and other issues. If the Government is not transparent in what it is doing, or is not seen to be transparent, that causes more difficulties and challenges for the political system and more damage within communities. For that reason, I ask the Minister to support the amendment.

Sentiment score: 0.09

Which is why there should be transparency.

Sentiment score: 0.00

I think the Minister is confusing providing information with transparency. He said earlier that there is a high level of transparency. It depends on what information he is providing. If the information is vague and does not provide what should be provided, I am afraid the transparency is not there. In relation to the profiteering that we certainly see in this area, I will get to the Comptroller and Auditor General’s report shortly, given that it was very clear about what it uncovered. There are also issues in relation to the suitability of some of the companies or individuals providing this accommodation. Do they have experience in this area? Are they the best people? Are the companies the best companies to provide the service? I remember that some 15 years ago, I was invited to a direct provision centre in Waterford city. A private company runs the service. There were about 80 families living in the accommodation at the time, and they invited me out because they had issues they wanted to talk about with their local public representative. When I got there, the manager of the centre would not allow me in. She said that I would have to make an appointment and come back again. I said that was fair enough and asked to make an appointment, but she said that, no, I could not meet them there. I was eventually barred from that centre. I certainly raised that with the Minister for Justice at the time. What really struck me was the “out of sight, out of mind” approach that was in place. There are genuine issues of transparency with regard to companies providing a service where over €1 billion is being spent and tens of millions are being made. We want to make sure that the highest levels of transparency apply. That brings me to the Comptroller and Auditor General’s report. If all of those checks and balances that the Minister says are in place were in place, why is it that the Comptroller and Auditor General, in his report, found major weaknesses in IPAS contracting? Why is it that he found overpayments, incorrect VAT charges, poor invoice verification, inadequate due diligence on providers and weak monitoring of accommodation standards? The report concluded that financial controls were insufficient and that the system allowed significant failures and potential profiteering. Those are not my words or Deputy Carthy’s words. They are the words of the Comptroller and Auditor General, who looked into this area and found there were problems left, right and centre. If there were problems left, right and centre that the Comptroller and Auditor General found, was he wrong? Is the Minister saying he was wrong? Deputy Carthy rightly called the Minister out when he said he saved tens of millions of euro. That only adds to what we are saying. He is making the argument for us that what we are calling for is what is needed. In the conclusion to the Minister's earlier comments, he said that this amendment is not necessary. That is what troubles me. I think the Minister believes what is there at the moment is robust, and he believes what is there at the moment is the level of transparency that I, the Members of this House and communities should have. I do not buy into that, and I do not believe it. I believe in much higher levels of transparency. I will finish where I started. There is a big difference between providing limited information, as the Minister does, and transparency. I think communities out there see it. They are calling the Minister out on it. They are calling the Government out. They are hoping that the Minister will make the changes that are necessary but, given his response to the previous comments made by Deputy Carthy, I and others, I think they will be waiting a while for that to come.

Sentiment score: -0.03