Dáil Éireann Debate, Wednesday - 17 October 2012
223. Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh asked the Minister for Justice and Equality the number of accommodation centres closed by the Reception and Integration Agency since August 2012, and the decreased number of asylum seekers spaces taken out of the system as a result of the closures; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [45285/12]
View answer224. Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh asked the Minister for Justice and Equality the cost to the State, paid in excess capacity versus occupancy, in the provision of accommodation for asylum seekers, from May 2010 to 1 October 2012; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [45286/12]
View answer225. Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh asked the Minister for Justice and Equality the reason the recommendations contained in the Value for Money and Policy Review, Reception and Integration Agency, Final Report May 2010, have not been implemented in regard to excess capacity, which as of 16 September 2012 was running at 14.7%, which represents 852 excess bed spaces; the cost of this excess capacity; the person in the Reception and Integration Agency that has overall responsibility for this excess; if the cost to the State can be quantified because of this excess capacity when measured against occupancy;; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [45287/12]
View answer226. Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh asked the Minister for Justice and Equality the reason the residents of Lisbrook House, Galway, who with their belongings were on a bus awaiting transfer to another accommodation centre, were instructed to get off the bus, take their belongings and return to Lisbrook House; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [45288/12]
View answer227. Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh asked the Minister for Justice and Equality the number of times since taking office he has visited the offices of the Reception and Integration Agency, at Bishop’s Gate, Dublin 2; the number of times and at what interval he is directly briefed by senior staff within the Reception and Integration Agency regarding the excess cost to the State of running an excess capacity over actual occupancy in the provision of services to asylum seekers; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [45289/12]
View answerI propose to take Questions Nos. 223 to 227, inclusive, together.
The Reception & Integration Agency (RIA), an operational unit of the Irish Naturalisation & Immigration Service (INIS) of my Department, is responsible for the accommodation of asylum seekers under the Direct Provision system. As of 7 October, 2012, RIA is accommodating 4,955 persons in 36 accommodation centres located in 17 counties throughout the country. Details of all of these centres are available on its website - www.ria.gov.ie. I am regularly briefed and kept informed on all matters relating to immigration and asylum including the Direct Provision System as well as, of course, the linked matters of finance and budgets.
The matter raised by the Deputy centres around the Value for Money Report and Policy Review - Asylum Seeker Accommodation Programme, published in 2010, which was laid before the Oireachtas and is available on the Oireachtas website and RIA's website www.ria.gov.ie . In this report, the VFM group accepted that it is not possible for RIA to achieve 100% occupancy of its accommodation - due to family configuration, sickness requiring isolation, and so on - and recommended that RIA strive for an occupancy rate of 90% or less of its available capacity. This is a guideline and at any point in time spare capacities can be above or below this figure. It is therefore an incorrect premise that capacity above 10% at a particular point in time is an 'excess' which can be quantified in monetary terms.
There are three reasons for this. Firstly, the ebb and flow of asylum seekers requiring RIA accommodation is such that it is impossible to predict with 100% certainty that the numbers requiring accommodation will result in a spare capacity of exactly 10% or less at any one point.
Secondly, contracts which RIA has with service providers are deliberately 'staggered' throughout the year to account for this ebb and flow. Indeed, generally contracts are now for between 12 and 18 months in duration and this allows RIA to engage or disengage from contracts as required having regard to current accommodation needs. Given the current downward trend in asylum seekers requiring accommodation, when a contract comes up for renewal a decision has to be made to seek to reduce its capacity, including adjusting capacity across a group of related centres, or to close it. RIA makes every effort to keep family centres open, preferring instead to reduce contracted capacities. But a reduction of capacity by, say, 15% does not mean a commensurate reduction in cost and the closure of a centre may be the only economic option for the contractor. It is simply not possible, taking into account the logistics involved in either reducing capacities or closing centres, to achieve a spare capacity of 10% at all times. This can only be achieved over a period of time taking into account projected fluctuations in demand.
Thirdly, the recommendation in this respect was one of a number of inter-linked recommendations. Among the recommendations of the VFM report was the introduction of a mix of ‘contracts for capacity’ and ‘contracts for availability and occupancy’ as well as a 'more open' tendering system in respect of the commercially owned and operated centres in the RIA portfolio. Preparatory work has begun on devising a more open tendering process for the commercially owned centres which could only have taken place following the recent completion of the tender competition for the management of RIA's seven State owned centres. This will be a difficult and complex exercise as the tender process will have to take account of "non-money" issues such as access to social, educational and health services as well as adherence to long standing Government policy on dispersal of asylum seekers throughout the country so that no one region is disproportionately burdened in relation to service provision, as well as a recognition that other State agencies may have already committed resources in a particular region or area.
An illustration of the complexities involved in taking actions to achieve the recommendations of the VFM report is the recent decision by RIA to close down the Lisbrook centre in Galway city. This operation was in progress when I received a number of representations, including from the Deputy’s own party on the matter. I instructed that the operation be suspended until the decision had been reviewed. The review concluded that the closure was necessary, particularly in view of the need to reduce bed capacity in RIA centres thereby reducing expenditure. This decision, of course, is entirely in keeping with the recommendation of the Value for Money Report and will yield a cost reduction of approximately €2 million.
In the period 2009 (when significant downsizing of the RIA portfolio began) to date, a total of 23 centres have been closed. When Lisbrook House is closed in a few weeks, that will bring the number up to 24 and will have yielded an overall reduction in capacity of 2,671. Arising from these closures and reductions in capacity, as well as other cost saving measures introduced by RIA, the cumulative savings overall on the Direct Provision system from the end of 2008 to the end of 2012 will amount to over €67 million.
Since August 2012, RIA has closed one centre - Viking Lodge in Dublin 8 (55 bed spaces) and is currently in the process of closing Lisbrook House in Galway City (284 bed spaces). Taking the closures indicated above as well as reductions in capacities on other contracts into account, RIA expects to have a capacity of 5,460 at 31 December, 2012. Taking current occupancies rates as a base, this would represent a spare capacity of 9.2%, well within the VFM recommendations.
