COMMITTEE OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTS díospóireacht

Chairman

We are dealing with the appropriation accounts of the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, chapter 4.1 - provision of accommodation for asylum seekers.

Witnesses should be aware that they do not enjoy absolute privilege. As and from 2 August 1998, section 10 of the Committees of the Houses of the Oireachtas (Compellability, Privileges and Immunities of Witnesses) Act 1997 granted certain rights to persons who are identified in the course of the committee's proceedings. Those rights include the right to give evidence, produce or send documents to the committee, appear before the committee either in person or through a representative, make a written and oral submission, request the committee to direct the attendance of witnesses and the production of documents and the right to cross-examine witnesses. For the most part, those rights can be exercised only with the consent of the committee. Persons invited before the committee are made aware of those rights and any person identified in the course of proceedings who is not present may have to be made aware of them and provided with the transcript of the relevant part of the committee's proceedings if the committee considers it appropriate in the interest of justice.

Notwithstanding that provision in legislation, I remind members of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that members should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the House or an official either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. Members are also reminded of the provision under Standing Order 156 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. Dalton and ask him to introduce his officials.

Chapter 4.1 of the report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:

The late 1990s saw a dramatic increase in the number of persons arriving in Ireland for the purposes of claiming asylum. Asylum seekers are entitled to remain in the country until their claims are processed which may take a considerable length of time. While awaiting the determination of their claims the Minister for Justice Equality and Law Reform (the Minister) is obliged to provide them with shelter and other basic needs. The Minister delegated this responsibility, initially to the Director of Asylum Support Services (Directorate) and subsequently to the Reception and Integration Agency (Agency) which replaced the Directorate in 2001. People seeking asylum, if successful in their application, attain the status of refugee, and in certain circumstances the Directorate/Agency may also have provided accommodation for those. In 1999 the Office of Public Works (OPW) acting as agents of the Directorate/Agency commenced a process of acquiring property, renting premises and recommissioning existing State property to provide accommodation to meet the demand.

The accommodation acquisition programme has to be viewed in the context of circumstances prevailing at the time.

The unprecented and unpredictable number of asylum seekers arriving in Ireland for whom accommodation had to be immediately available.

The general unavailability of accommodation in the Irish housing market at the time.

The Government Decision of 28 March 2000 approving an accommodation mix to meet the demands being placed on the State arising from the numbers claiming asylum.

The need to find alternative approaches to conventional methods of securing accommodation which would reflect the emergency nature of the evolving crisis.

The need to find practical and swift solutions to the challenges posed by planning legislation in responding to a demand for accommodation.

The reality that many local communities vehemently opposed the location of asylum seekers in their area and the consequent implications for local consultation measures.

Since 1999 Office of Public Works has purchased ten properties, and leased one site with a view to converting or constructing suitable residential units for use by the Directorate/Agency for asylum seeker/refugee accommodation.

As I noted that four of the properties acquired and the leased site have never been used for their intended purpose of accommodating asylum seekers, I sought the views of the Accounting Officer of the Department of Justice Equality and Law Reform on the way in which the acquisition programme had been managed and in particular the measures that had been taken to ensure coherence and co-ordination in the strategies and decision making employed in relation to the programme.

The Department's Response

Management of Acquisition Programme

General Approach

It was clear from early 2000 that conventional approaches incorporating long lead-in times and extensive preparation would be problematic. Such approaches assume that demand levels can be predicted and that interim solutions are available to address the long lead-in times. Neither of these assumptions were valid ones for the Agency. From a management point of view procurement policy was focused on securing as many units as possible in the shortest time possible.

In March 2000 the Government decided, inter alia, that the provision of accommodation for asylum seekers should be through a mix of 2000 places in the commercial sector, 1000 places in mobile homes, 4000 places in system-built accommodation, 4000 places in permanent built accommodation and 1000 places in flotels. While some of these proposals proved difficult if not impossible to implement in practice, they do illustrate the enormity of the problem and the urgent need at the time to maximise the number of accommodation units.

The plans made in March 2000 were based in part on the figure of 7,724 applications which had been received the previous year. However, in both 2000 and 2001 the number of applications received exceeded 10,000 - an unpredicted increase of approximately 30% over the 1999 figure. Against this background, every offer of accommodation and every offer of a site had to be pursued with the utmost vigour requiring difficult balances to be struck between conventional best practice and the pragmatic need to deliver on the Government's responsibility in this area. The Agency believes that this balance was carefully struck in all cases.

Planning Challenges

It was clear to the Directorate from the outset that compliance with normal planning permission procedures for the construction of either system built or permanent built accommodation units or where change of use issues might arise, was likely to be incompatible with the urgent nature of the Directorate's task and this view continued to be held subsequent to the Directorate being subsumed into the Reception and Integration Agency in April 2001. In practical terms, allowing for the processing of a planning application by the planning authority, possible appeal to An Bord Planála, court hearings etc, a realistic leadtime for the conventional planning process could take in the order of a year or more. When this period is added to the time needed to plan the development and to carry out any necessary construction alterations the resultant time frame would inevitably have resulted in the failure by the Directorate (and subsequently the Agency) to deliver on its mandate and could have given rise to asylum seekers being left homeless.

In February 2000, following discussions between representatives of the Directorate and planning officials in the Department of the Environment and Local Government on whether it was possible to avoid the planning process or to use a limited process in order to allow the conversion of certain buildings and the construction of others in order to accommodate asylum seekers, that Department sought the advice of the Office of the Attorney General. Having considered the issue, including the emergency nature of providing sufficient accommodation for the very greatly increased numbers of asylum seekers arriving in the State in an already closed market, that Office advised that the making of Ministerial Orders under Section 2(2) of the Local Government (Planning and Development) Act, 1993 (which provided that, where a development is proposed to be carried out by or on behalf of a Minister, the Minister concerned, may, if he or she is satisfied that the carrying out of that development is required by reason of an accident or emergency, by Order provide that the Planning Acts shall not apply to the development), was the most appropriate statutory vehicle to enable the change of use and construction to be carried out urgently. The Office of the Attorney General further indicated that as such developments were being carried out by or on behalf of the Minister for Justice Equality and Law Reform he should make the Orders and that the then Attorney General agreed that the provision of accommodation for asylum seekers in such circumstances constituted an "emergency" for the purposes of the Act. It was also his view that this provision was the most appropriate statutory vehicle to enable the change of use and construction to be carried out quickly. This legislative provision was subsequently replaced by Section 181 (2) (a) of the Planning and Development Act, 2000 which had similar effect. This provision was used in relation to the proposed construction of a system built accommodation centre at Leggetsrath, Kilkenny in consultation with the Office of the Attorney General which also approved the text of the Ministerial Order. In an effort to further progress the provision of permanent built accommodation a number of hotels and other properties were purchased.

The Agencys evaluation of how to proceed in any individual case was critical not only to that particular case but also to the many other projects being undertaken by the Agency at that time. The implications of a Ministerial Order being successfully challenged and any court ruling that a particular development needed planning permission would have grave consequences for the entire accommodation plans of the Agency. As events transpired, extensive, difficult and lengthy negotiations became major factors in delays to urgent accommodation projects. The Accounting Officer pointed out that Ministerial Orders had been made in relation to 10 projects without challenge and that their use had only been challenged on two occasions both of which remain the subject of court proceedings. In this regard, Ministerial Orders have been used successfully without legal challenge in relation to the construction of 3 system built accommodation centres (Balseskin, Co. Dublin, Knockalisheen, Co Clare and Kinsale Road, Co. Cork) and 3 mobile home sites: Kildare, Athlone and Tralee.

Community Consultation

The Agency has, and always had, a deep understanding and appreciation of the value of community participation and involvement in successful reception strategies. That understanding has been deepened by its experiences since 1999 which, in the main, have had successful outcomes though often traumatic at the time both for the Agency and the local community. The Agencys consultation strategies did, however, have to reflect the reality that asking communities beforehand about their preparedness to accept centres for asylum seekers was tantamount to abandoning the planned accommodation programme. The Agencys experience proved that most communities were not prepared to accept the arrival of asylum seekers in their midst and indeed some were prepared to take physical action in support of their feelings in the matter.

Accordingly, rather than seeking prior approval, the Agencys consultation strategy was focussed on local discussions and information provision in the context of firm proposals to locate in any particular area.

Commitments to contracts both for land and property were, therefore, necessary so that the Agency did not simply find itself having sets of fruitless discussions with one community after another. In this environment, it was inevitable that delays occurred in persuading communities to accept the proposals or a version thereof, which was compatible with the Agencys accommodation objectives.

The Accounting Officer pointed out that, despite such difficulties, the Agency currently operates 71 accommodation centres in 24 counties throughout the State.

Strategy Co-Ordination

The Agency's strategy in relation to accommodation procurement and placements has always been to ensure, in as much as possible, the maintena nce of a sensitive, balanced and proportionate approach nationwide. The success of this strategy is illustrated by the distribution of direct provision asylum seeker accommodation across Health Board areas. In no case do the numbers exceed one third of 1% of the population of a Boards area.

The Agency believes that it exercised as much coherence and coordination as was possible under very difficult circumstances. The Government decision of 28 March 2000 reflected the broad strategic approach to providing accommodation for asylum seekers under what was clearly an emergency situation.

Certain constituents of that strategy were not feasible in practice and so even further pressure was placed on the need to maximise responses from the commercial sector. In a situation of limited availability of accommodation units, strategy and decision making had to necessarily focus on seeking to capitalise on every offer of accommodation, with particular emphasis on getting sites and premises up and running in the shortest time possible. Specifically, this involved:

Issuing of Ministerial Orders where planning issues were likely to arise

Maintaining ongoing and close connection with the States legal advisers

Avoiding the creation of legal precedents which would jeopardise the Agencys accommodation programme

Negotiating and where possible adjusting its proposals to accommodate local objections

Respecting the existence of pending judicial proceedings

Working to secure alternative or temporary uses for properties where the immediate use for asylum seeker accommodation could not, for whatever reason, be secured.

The Agency reiterated that it did not control many of the factors governing successful accommodation outcomes. Planning issues and constant local opposition had to be addressed on a pragmatic basis so that the States responsibilities for asylum accommodation could be addressed.

The Agency has as part of its co-ordinated nationwide accommodation strategy been developing regional accommodation centres which offer a more integrated solution to the needs of the asylum seekers with accommodation, health, welfare, recreation, education, occupational and other ancillary services available on site.

The development of regional centres has greatly enhanced the delivery of services to asylum seekers by the various agencies (Health Boards, Refugee Legal Service, VEC, GPs, Public Health Nurses, Psychologists etc.) charged with providing services to asylum seekers in a more co-ordinated and professional manner. The position in this regard is set out in Table 4.1.

Region	Regional Centre
Eastern	Balseskin Reception Centre
North-Eastern	Mosney
North West	Agency currently examining proposals for facility in Sligo*
Western	Under consideration*
Mid West	Knockalisheen accommodation centre
Midland	Athlone accommodation centre
Southern	Kinsale Road accommodation centre
South-Eastern	Kilkenny accommodation centre*

*Indicates not yet operational.

Issues Relating to Unused Properties

As expenditure on the acquisition, maintenance and security of the five unused properties could ultimately result in poor value for the Exchequer I also sought the views of the Accounting Officer on the circumstances in which these assets were not used for the purposes for which they had been acquired.

Since Office of Public Works acted as agents for the Department in procuring the properties by purchase or lease and obtained technical assessments and a professional evaluation of each property prior to purchase/lease I also sought the views of the Accounting Officer of Office of Public Works on the transactions.

Devereux Hotel - Rosslare

This property comprising a 25 bedroom hotel together with a three bedroom bungalow to the rear, was brought to the attention of the Office of Public Works by the Directorate for Refugee and Asylum Seekers Services on 10 March 2000. The Directorate viewed the property as being particularly suitable for the purpose of accommodating asylum seekers, given its location in Rosslare. A public auction was scheduled for 15 March 2000.

The Office of Public Works obtained a professional valuation of the property and entered into negotiations with the vendor. A negotiated price of €2.74m which was within the valuation range was agreed prior to the auction.

In May 2000 the Minister received written objections from a solicitor acting on behalf of the Rosslare Harbour Community Association to the proposed usage of the property for Asylum Seekers. In the letter he stated that planning permission was required before the accommodation could be used to house Asylum Seekers, and maintained that any Exemption Order made by the Minister pursuant to section 2(2) of the Planning and Development Act 1993, to exempt the Directorate from having to seek planning permission to have the building used to accommodate Asylum Seekers, would be unlawful, and threatened to apply to the Courts for an injunction to quash any such Order.

In November 2000 the Directorate informed the Association that the hotel would not be used to accommodate Asylum Seekers, would be sold by 1 May 2002, and that in the interim it would be used to process applicants for asylum. On 7 September 2001 Office of Public Works wrote to the Directorate stating that because a commitment had been given to sell the hotel by 1 May 2002, and as no State Agency had given a firm commitment to use the property, it was considered best to sell it. The Directorate replied on 25 September 2001 stating that circumstances had changed in that the number of applicants claiming asylum in Rosslare had fallen from 1466 in 2000 to 39 in the first eight months of 2001, and that they had no objections to the sale. The legal registering of title in the name of the Office of Public Works was completed on 1 May 2002. The property was put on the market at the end of 2002. After a tendering competition the property was sold for €1,859,590. The closure of the sale was effected on 21 July 2003. The security and other costs on the building since its acquisition up until 21 July 2003 are €452,590.

Department's Response

The period between the purchase of the property in April 2000 and an undertaking in November of that year to dispose of the hotel by May 2002 did not represent an inactive gap in the Agencys activities.

Rather, an intensive series of difficult negotiations involving, inter alia, local politicians took place where the Agency sought to resolve the conflict between the total opposition of the local community in a highly charged atmosphere and the need to maximise the use of the property. This negotiating environment was characterised by:

Intense local and political opposition

Threats of court action over alleged lack of planning permission (with its consequent implications for the Agency's general accommodation programme)

24-hour pickets and a blockade which continued for many months

Blockading of adjoining premises involving health and safety issues.

Against this background compromises were necessary and these took place over six formal meetings and correspondence with local residents and politicians. The use of the centre for accommodation rather than reception and its additional use by the Garda and the Health Board were among these compromises proposed. In the final analysis, to avoid a complete standoff which would deny any added value to the Agency or the State, it was considered necessary to undertake to dispose of the property at some time in the future. The particular date agreed was May 2002 and this was subject to market value being realised.

This had nothing to do with any revised needs assessment or the general suitability of the premises. It was a pragmatic decision by the Agency geared towards ensuring that its accommodation objectives could be met.

As regards the ultimate sale of the property, throughout the first half of 2001, the Agency continued to endeavour to implement the other proposed uses of the premises but this did not work out in practice.

As already pointed out, events were overtaken by a sudden drop in requirements for accommodation in Rosslare. Following a final trawl of all Government Departments and a review of space within the Office of Public Works, the Agency notified the Office of Public Works in September 2001 that the premises were no longer required and that the Refugee Legal Service had indicated that it had no longer an interest in using the Hotel and the Health Board had only identified a use for a small part of it. It was further indicated that if it was Office of Public Works's considered opinion that the time was then opportune to dispose of the property so as to maximise its market value then the Agency would have no objections. The ultimate sale of the premises was then a matter for Office of Public Works.

OPW Response

The disposal price of €1.86m reflected a number of negative factors including (i) the absence of a special purpose purchaser (ii) the effects on the tourism industry of the Foot and Mouth crisis, which peaked during the period between the purchase and disposal of the hotel; (iii) a general deterioration in the market for this type of property, reflecting a downturn in the tourism industry and (iv) the effects of the loss of goodwill and trade during the period when the property was not used as a hotel.

Site at Leggetsrath Co. Kilkenny

This site was leased by Office of Public Works on 8 March 2002 under a licence agreement at a monthly rent of €15,332, with a pull out clause in favour of Office of Public Works if the project could not proceed. The site was leased in order that system built accommodation to house about 250 asylum seekers could be constructed on it. A lease agreement for a period of 4 years and 9 months at an annual fee of €184,000 per annum was also agreed which would commence after the system built accommodation had been erected.

On 11 March 2002 the Minister made an Order in exercise of his statutory powers under the Planning and Development Act 2000, to dispense with the requirement to obtain planning permission for the development. A letter accepting a tender from the contractor for the construction of system built accommodation in the sum of €6.56m (including VAT) was signed by an Office of Public Works Commissioner on 14 March 2002.

On 19 March 2002 Office of Public Works received written correspondence from a solicitor, acting for local residents, objecting to the proposed development, and on 20 March 2002 the same solicitor sought an explanation as to why the Exemption Order had been made and threatened to go to the High Court to halt the development.

At a meeting on 21 March between the Chief State Solicitors Office (CSSO), Office of Public Works, and the Agency, it was agreed to defer commencing site work until 27 May 2002 to allow time for the Agency to meet and consult local people.

Following the meeting the CSSO wrote to the objectors solicitor informing him that work would not commence on site until after 27 May 2002. The solicitor replied on 22 April 2002 stating that the Ministerial Order was unlawful and gave seven days for it to be revoked or that otherwise it would be challenged in court. In May 2002 the High Court found merit in the objectors case and granted leave to bring an application for Judicial Review.

On 9 May 2002 the CSSO advised Office of Public Works that the Attorney General had directed that the Agency should not use Exemption Orders under sections 181(2)(a) of the Planning and Development Act 2000 in any future cases without his prior approval, and that Office of Public Works should not enter into agreements or contracts on foot of such Orders unless he had first approved the use of the Order.

On 10 May 2002, the contractor requested clarification as to when site work might commence. In response, Office of Public Works initiated discussions with the contractor, which led to a settlement figure of €2,026,970 inclusive of VAT being agreed in full and final settlement of costs incurred by the contractor on the project.

Other costs incurred in the project were Quantity Surveying €176,091, rent €275,777, storage €53,361 and legal costs €4,041, bringing total costs incurred on the project up to 22 August 2003 to €2,536,240.

Department's Reponse

The Agency and its predecessor were in almost continuous contact with the Office of the Attorney General in relation to the use of emergency planning orders by the Minister. As with other accommodation projects, a decision on the Kilkenny site was informed by detailed legal advice on all aspects of the use of such Orders. In keeping with this approach the Office of the Attorney General was consulted in relation to its use of a Ministerial Order for this proposed project and the text of the Orders were cleared by that Office. The Agency had to balance any risk of the Orders being challenged against the opportunity to increase the accommodation portfolio. From the Agencys point of view, the balance of advantage lay clearly in favour of the use of the Order and it was duly signed in March 2002.

The signing of the contract for the system built accommodation was a matter for the Office of Public Works.

OPWs Reponse

The advice of the Attorney General dated 21 February 2000 to the Department of the Environment and Local Government, was to use Section 2 (2) of the 1993 Planning and Development Act which provides that where a development is proposed to be carried out by or on behalf of a Minister, the Minister concerned may, if he or she is satisfied that the carrying out of the development is required by reason of accident or emergency, by order, provide that the Act shall not apply to the development.

Similar Orders had been made by the Minister for Justice to allow construction works to be undertaken in Athlone, Tralee and Kildare prior to the siting of mobile homes at those locations for the accommodation of asylum seekers.

Orders under the 1993 Act were also signed by the Minister for Justice in the case of the system-built construction at Knockalisheen, Co. Clare and Kinsale Road, Cork, where units identical to those planned for Kilkenny had been constructed. A similar Order was signed in the case of Balseskin site near Dublin Airport. The legal advice was therefore clear and consequently there was no basis to seek further advice from the Attorney General prior to signing the contract for Leggetsrath.

The decision not to commence work on site until 27 May 2002 was taken on 21 March 2002 on the recommendation of Reception and Integration Agency. The Accounting Officer stated that he was satisfied that the contractor was immediately informed following the meeting on 21 March 2002 of the decision to defer commencement until 27 May.

The accommodation in Kilkenny was intended to be temporary and the units were all demountable which meant that in the event of a change in circumstances, (such as a demand for an excessive rent increase in the event of an extension of the lease) they could be transferred to another site.

The costs involved in the event of the buildings having to be moved to a new site or sold off after expiry of the lease would depend on many factors i.e. new site condition, condition of buildings, availability of services etc.

The cost of re-instating the site in question after five years is estimated at €140,000 approximately as of 24 July 2001.

Broc House - Donnybrook, Dublin

This property, which consists of a three-storey block of purpose built accommodation on one and a half acres, was purchased on 30 June 2000 for €9,205,601.

The sale tender documents describes the area on which the property is situated as being zoned to permit such uses as Residential, Training Centre, Medical and Related Consultants, Embassy and Education.

In September 2000, solicitors, acting on behalf of local residents, wrote to the Directorate objecting to Broc House being used as a reception centre for asylum seekers, on the grounds that it constituted a change of use and that this required planning permission.

In October 2000 the Agency requested Office of Public Works to proceed with the necessary works to get the building ready for asylum seekers as a matter of urgency and provided a copy of favourable legal advice which it had received from the Attorney General to the effect that the project could proceed without planning permission.

In February 2001 the residents were successful in their court application to have Judicial Review Proceedings held to determine if the property could be used to house asylum seekers without planning permission being first obtained. The matter is due for hearing in the High Court on 20/21 November 2003.

In January 2001 it was decided that the refurbishment work needed to make the building suitable to accommodate asylum seekers should be deferred until the Judicial review process was completed.

In August 2002, St Vincents Hospital wrote to Office of Public Works seeking to rent the property as accommodation for its nursing staff. No decision had been taken on whether or not to accede to this request by June 2003.

The security and other costs incurred on the building since its acquisition up to 22 August 2003 are €432,189.

Department's Response

Prior to their successful court application, Solicitors acting for the residents had advised that any attempts to house asylum seekers in the hostel would be met with injunction proceedings. They also advised that if the Department entered into any contracts with third parties it did so in the full knowledge that such proceedings would be brought. In these circumstances the Agency did not consider it prudent to seek to force the issue by occupying the premises particularly having regard to the collateral risk to the Agency's accommodation objectives should the residents obtain an injunction. In all the circumstances, the Office of the Chief State Solicitor advised the solicitors representing the residents that they would be informed in good time of the intention to use the premises.

OPW's Response

The initial request was received from St. Vincents Hospital in mid-August 2002, but details of the proposed usage were not received until January 2003. The Office of Public Works sought legal advice on the proposal.

The advice was obtained in March 2003. At that stage it was decided not to proceed further with the proposal as the Judicial Review was expected to be heard during the Summer law term - which would not have permitted a viable lease period.

Ionad Follain - Myshall, Co. Carlow

This property, which consists of a two storey Glebe building with 6 self contained apartments and other ancillary accommodation situated on 5 acres, was acquired by Office of Public Works in July 2000 for a consideration of €1.3m.

There were objections from local residents to the use of the property to house asylum seekers.

In March 2001 the Directorate informed Office of Public Works that in response to representations from the South-Eastern Health Board (SEHB) and the Irish Society for Autism, it would not object to the property being made available to the SEHB as a facility for children with disabilities. Office of Public Works agreed to the transfer request.

The property was transferred to the Department of Health and Children for no consideration on 22 August 2002. That Department was requested to provide security with effect from September 2002, as the Office of Public Works security contract would cease on 31 August 2002.

The security and other costs incurred on the property since its acquisition up to the date of its transfer to the Department of Health and Children were €176,510. Costs incurred by that Department up to 31December 2002 were €18,605. The property remained vacant as at 1 September 2003.

Department's Response

In early 2000 this property was offered to Office of Public Works following a public advertisement. Following an examination of the facilities, the Agency decided to use it as an accommodation centre for asylum seekers.

OPW indicated to the then Director for Asylum Support Services that contracts for the purchase of the property were signed by them on 14 April 2000. Strong opposition was expressed by local residents at a public meeting held on 14 April 2000 and on 17 April, the Directorate was informed by Office of Public Works that the owner had been assaulted, threatened with being shot and was under Garda protection.

The proposed use of the property by the Directorate and public perception that its purchase by Office of Public Works had dislodged a bid by the Irish Society for Autism became the focus of sustained negative local, political and media reaction.

Faced with this new and unforeseen dimension, the Directorate commenced discussions with the Department of Health and the South-Eastern Health Board to explore the issues. Initial discussions in September/October 2000 suggested that a comprehensive needs assessment was needed before the use of the premises by the Irish Society for Autism would be appropriate. At this stage, the Directorate were considering the short-term use of the premises for asylum seekers pending the outcome of further deliberations by the Department of Health and Children and by the SEHB.

These deliberations culminated in a letter from the Department of Health on 13 March 2001 informing the Agency that the SEHB had confirmed the suitability of the premises as a residential facility for the children with autism. While the Agency continued to operate against a backdrop of a severe shortage of asylum seeker accommodation, it took the view that such accommodation should not be sourced to the detriment of indigenous vulnerable groups such as children with disabilities. In those circumstances and particularly having regard to the depth of local hostility, the Agency by letter of 21 March 2001, advised Office of Public Works that, in all the circumstances, it would have no objections to the property being made available for use by the South-Eastern Health Board subject to the usual requirements of the Office of Public Works.

The decision not to use the property was based on the foregoing considerations. It was not related to any inadequacy in needs assessment or unsuitability as an accommodation centre. The Agency had to be in a position to continue to meet ongoing urgent need for asylum seeker accommodation against a backdrop of a chronic shortage of accommodation of all tenures throughout the State and hostile public opinion and the decision on the use of the property reflected this.

OPW's Response

The property was regarded as very suitable for use as accommodation for asylum seekers and the Directorate for Refugee and Asylum Support Services directed that Office of Public Works should actively pursue acquisition. The Accounting Officer was satisfied that a proper evaluation was carried out by Office of Public Works and the need for its requirement at that time was properly established prior to the purchase of the property.

The subsequent decision not to use the property as accommodation for asylum seekers was made by the Directorate. The Office of Public Works had no other State requirement for this property and had no objection to its transfer to the Department of Health and Children.

The Department of Finance sanctioned the transfer of the property to the Department of Health and Children. The question of bringing the facility into productive use is a matter for that Department. The delay in completing the transfer of title to the Department was due to pressure of conveyancing work in the Chief State Solicitors Office.

Lynch's Lodge Hotel - Macroom, Co. Cork

This property, which comprises a modern two-storey 33-bedroom hotel, was acquired by Office of Public Works in October 2000 for a consideration of €3.5m.

In September 2000 (after the sale of the property had been agreed but prior to closure) the Department received a letter of objection from a solicitor, acting on behalf of local residents, which stated that the proposed usage was in contravention of the planning laws and that unless there was an undertaking that planning permission would be sought he would seek a court injunction to prevent the property being used to accommodate asylum seekers.

In response the Department stated that the hotel would provide a full range of services to the public, but the residents stated that if the property were to be operated as a hotel in this way, that the Department and the Office of Public Works would be acting unlawfully.

The residents pursued their case and were successful in their court application on 18 December 2000 to have Judicial Review Proceedings progress on the grounds that any change of use of the premises from a motel or hotel to a reception centre for the accommodation of asylum seekers was not exempt from planning.

The security and other costs incurred on the building since its acquisition up to 22 August 2003 are €448,439.

Department's Response

In the light of the residents' successful application Counsel for the State in the case advised the CSSO that it was likely that the applicants or the Court might require an undertaking not to commence use during the adjournment of the case. The CSSO shared that view and instructed Counsel to give such an undertaking.

OPWs Response

The property was purchased with the approval of the Directorate for Asylum and Support Services, who had anticipated having asylum seekers accommodated there by mid-October 2000. The Office of Public Works was not involved in the later decision not to use these premises to accommodate asylum seekers.

Mr. John Purcell

The late 1990s saw a dramatic increase in the number of people arriving in Ireland seeking asylum. Under international conventions, the Government is obliged to provide them with shelter and other basic needs pending the determination of the status of their claim to asylum. This function falls within the area of responsibility of the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform. He delegated the responsibility to the director of asylum support services. That post was later subsumed into the reception and integration agency.

The increased numbers put a strain on the system for investigating claims for asylum and the resulting accumulation of unprocessed applications in turn led to a build-up in the demand for accommodation. By early 2000 the Government had decided the provision of accommodation for asylum seekers should be delivered through a combination of permanent buildings, system built units and mobile homes and the renting of places in the commercial sector. Florets were even mentioned at one stage. On foot of this decision, Office of Public Works, acting on behalf of the Reception and Integration Agency embarked on a programme of property acquisitions to meet part of the demand.

A key instrument in bringing some acquired properties into use quickly was the making of ministerial orders to avoid the planning process on the grounds that providing sufficient accommodation for the growing numbers of asylum seekers arriving in the State in difficult market conditions constituted an emergency for the purpose of the governing Act. Another approach was to acquire property where it was considered that planning permission was unnecessary because no material change of use was involved. While the overall approach met with considerable success, problems surfaced at five locations. As a result of local opposition, backed up in some cases by legal action centring on planning issues, four properties purchased between March and October 2000 remained unoccupied. Similar factors came into play at the fifth location where a site was leased to accommodate system-built units.

One of the properties, the Devereux Hotel, and a bungalow to the rear, was sold in line with a commitment given to the objectors - the premises were never occupied in the three years it was in State ownership. The initial decision to sell coincided with a dramatic fall in the number of asylum seekers arriving in Rosslare in 2001. The State incurred a loss of €1.33 million on the acquisition when account was taken of the depressed sale price and the security and other costs incurred.

The second property, Broc House, Donnybrook, was acquired in June 2000 at a cost of €9.2 million. Soon afterwards solicitors acting for local residents objected to its proposed use as a reception centre for asylum seekers. The matter was listed for hearing in the High Court recently but I do not know if the case has been heard yet. The property has remained unused since it was bought and almost €500,000 in security and other costs have been incurred in the interim.

The third property was lonad Follain, Myshall, County Carlow. It was purchased in July 2000 for €1.3 million. Again, there was strong local opposition to its proposed use especially as there was a view locally that the premises were being earmarked as a residential facility for children with autism. Apparently the State agencies were unaware of this local dimension when they acquired the property. In 2002 the property was transferred free to the Department of Health and Children to make it available to the South-Eastern Health Board for that purpose. To the best of my knowledge, the property is still unoccupied. Security and other costs have accumulated to over €200,000 in the meantime.

The fourth property was Lynch's Lodge Hotel, Macroom, County Cork, and it was bought for €3.5 million in October 2000. Just after the sale was agreed but prior to closure a letter of objection was received from a solicitor acting for local residents. They were successful in their application for a judicial review but I do not think the case has been finalised yet. The premises remains unoccupied. Over €450,000 has been incurred on security and other costs.

A problem also arose involving the leasing of a site at Leggetsrath, County Kilkenny, in March 2002 for the construction of system-built accommodation to house about 250 asylum seekers. A tender for €6.56 million for the construction of the units was accepted just as objections to the proposed development were being made. The objectors have been successful in their application for a judicial review. In the circumstances no work on the site has been undertaken to date. As a result of terminating the construction contract a settlement of €2 million was made with the contractor. Other costs, including ongoing rent payments for the site, have accumulated to over €500,000.

The accountability issue centres around the following loaded questions. Did the State agencies act reasonably in acquiring these properties in the acknowledged difficult circumstances at the time and with due regard to the State's financial interests? How well have they managed the situation since then from the viewpoint of minimising the cost to the State? In endeavouring to come up with answers to those questions I suggest that while each of the acquisitions have common features relating to planning issues and local opposition, it would be necessary for the committee to examine each case to take account of the particular considerations applying before it can conclude on the matter.

Chairman

Mr. Dalton will now make a brief opening statement.

Mr. Dalton

I provided the committee with an opening statement. I can read it into the record, if necessary. If members take it as read I can summarise it.

Chairman

Only what is read out will be recorded. Mr. Dalton's whole evidence will be on record. However, if he decides not to read his statement, it will be published in the committee's annual report.

Mr. Dalton

It will only take a few minutes. The Comptroller and Auditor General has summed up the issue well and his report represents a good summary of the situation. In late 1999, as he said, it became apparent that the State was facing a challenge of unprecedented proportions to provide accommodation and support for a very large, and rapidly growing, number of asylum seekers entering the State. The number of people entering the country and applying for asylum had increased from just over 570 in July to over 1,200 by December 1999. For the whole of 1999 as many as 7,724 applications were received. That was an increase of 67% over the number who applied in 1998. In 2000 almost 11,000 applications were received. In other words, the State had to provide annually for additional numbers that would equate to the population of many medium sized towns here.

This was done against a background where a problem of this scale had never been encountered before, together with the fact that there were no obvious, ready made solutions. Unlike some other European jurisdictions we did not, for example, have a bank of unoccupied and suitable accommodation in State ownership. We also had to ensure that any accommodation offered reached certain standards and we rejected hundreds of accommodation offers on grounds of unsuitability - about 500 offers of accommodation were turned down.

As accommodation supplies in Dublin dried up the Government decided on a policy of dispersal. That meant accommodating asylum seekers wherever suitable premises could be found outside Dublin. Long queues of men, women and children had begun to form outside the Department's offices in Dublin as early as 6 a.m. each day. These continued until about 8 p.m. on many occasions. It was not unusual for family groups to be turned away, at that stage, on the basis that it was not possible to source accommodation for them anywhere in the city. The Government decided to introduce a system of direct provision as in the United Kingdom and other jurisdictions. It meant that the State would provide accommodation, food, health care, education etc. but would then pay reduced welfare payments.

The Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform was of the view that other Departments had more expertise in the area of providing accommodation, welfare supports and health care etc. because it did not have a background of working in these areas. One of the Departments, the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, the Department of Health and Children or the Department of Social and Family Affairs might, therefore, be asked to lead on this issue, and the Government decided that the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform should take the lead role. The justice ministries in other jurisdictions had the same experience. For example, the Home Office in the UK was given the task, and the same has happened in other EU member states.

While we took the lead role we received, and were very grateful for, the support of other Departments and agencies which seconded staff to our team. As the Comptroller and Auditor General has said, the team was known as the Directorate for Asylum Support Services and was later called the Reception and Integration Agency. Its total staff was 57, 48 of whom were my Department's officials. The Office of Public Works played a significant role when it came to sourcing accommodation, providing property valuations, entering letting agreements etc., and we were fortunate to have access to its expertise on these matters.

Apart from the fact that we were facing a substantial and growing challenge in finding accommodation for our new arrivals, it also became apparent that the local residents in certain areas were strongly opposed to the placement of asylum seekers in their midst. In some cases, including cases that were the subject of the Comptroller and Auditor General's report, the level of resistance was extremely strong. I am not criticising or blaming communities but simply stating a relevant fact.

I will say why normal planning processes were not followed in all cases in sourcing accommodation. It was evident that, even leaving aside the cases where resistance was strong, it would have been impossible to accommodate asylum seekers within anything approaching a reasonable timeframe had we followed normal planning procedures in all cases. We were in a situation where women and children were reportedly left unsheltered overnight in public parks, which was quite simply unsustainable on humanitarian grounds. The situation was such that using tents to accommodate new arrivals was actively considered and supported by the UNHCR. Moreover, consideration was given to using specially adapted ships known as flotels and everybody will be aware of the controversy that generated. However, this proved to be fruitless because we were advised there were no suitable berthing facilities in any port or harbour. There was no choice but to act quickly and this is why ministerial orders under local government planning legislation were employed in certain cases.

What plans did the Office of Public Works have if planning applications were stalled or there were judicial reviews of property purchased? What plans were in place to provide for the security and maintenance of some of these properties, some of which would have made a handsome price in the marketplace if they had been looked after? Did the Office of Public Works stumble into having security and other measures put in place? Can we have the figures for ongoing maintenance costs since the purchase of these buildings? Can we have the figures for ongoing security and other costs involved in maintaining these properties at a level that might make good on a sale?

Mr. Dalton

I hope anything I said did not imply the people of County Kilkenny had a more negative attitude than others to the arrival of asylum seekers into their communities. That would be wrong. That is why I said I was making the comments about community resistance without criticism. Certain people will exercise their constitutional right to take court proceedings in certain cases. I am not suggesting this implied any racist attitudes in County Kilkenny or anywhere else. It is simply a fact that there was resistance to the moves.

As to whether bulldozing took place - it is not a term I would use - in certain cases we pressed ahead knowing there was local opposition because we had no choice. There was no area where there was not a certain degree of opposition. Asylum seekers coming into the midst of communities was a strange and new development but, thankfully, it has now settled down. People are now more accepting of the fact that Ireland is becoming a multicultural society. This is a welcome development. The Reception and Integration Agency has put significant resources into support for agencies such as those in which Deputy McGuinness is involved and it is working. It is unfortunate that at the time we could not go through consultation processes that would have been the ideal. However, had we done so, we would now have an unsustainable humanitarian problem on our hands.

I cannot say what conversations took place with anyone in the Kilkenny county managers office. I am not aware of what happened but someone else might be in a position to clarify this. As to whether the Office of Public Works realised that there would be opposition, we did. In many cases we knew that we would run into opposition but it was Hobson's choice. There was a direction from the Government to find accommodation for asylum seekers. It was also a demand made by the UN High Commissioner for Refugees. However, when one claims a certain local area is suitable, there is always the attitude that other places are better.

In some cases, following purchase, we were notified by lawyers that there would be opposition. This came as no surprise to us. We have located 32,000 asylum seekers in 120 places. We were bound to run into difficulty in some cases which was regrettable. We did not act in an unreasonable manner. There are other questions on conversations that took place between Kilkenny county manager and the Office of Public Works, on which I am not in a position to elaborate.

Mr. Benton

I am not aware that there was such an approach or that such a conversation took place in the Kilkenny case. I accept Deputy McGuinness's point and do not condone it, if it happened. It is not normally the way the Office of Public Works does business.

On the ongoing costs of securing and maintaining buildings, the Office of Public Works has a responsibility to maintain and secure them. It will do what is necessary to deliver on this responsibility. The Deputy suggested we had bulldozed our way in. However, I am proud that we managed to do so much work in so many centres in such a short period of time in response to what was then perceived as a national emergency. I reject the suggestion that in some way we were inconsiderate in the way we approached the project - far from it. We were anxious to deliver on the requirements of the directorate and, subsequently, the agency as quickly as possible.

On the local consultation process, I repeat that the role of the Office of Public Works was to advise the directorate and the agency on all property issues. The consultation with local communities was handled by the directorate and the agency.

The Deputy referred to the purchase price of the Devereux Hotel, County Wexford. Prior to the auction we arranged the purchase within the range of the professional valuation we had secured. What happened to its disposal price afterwards is a matter of record. It simply reflects the fact that the market had changed and that, while it was bought as an on-going concern and a business operating on goodwill, that was no longer the case. When it was purchased it was within the range of what would have been the value at the time. It is worth repeating what the Secretary General said about how we have difficulties in relation to four sites out of a total of 71 in operation throughout the country.

Deputy McGuinness

I will not labour the point but will move on to the questions on other locations. I asked about the on-going cost of security and other measures to maintain and protect these sites. I understand that the Office of Public Works has to do this, and I ask its representatives to spell out the cost involved. There is no misunderstanding here, and I am absolutely clear that I consider all of the Office of Public Works's actions to have been inconsiderate to local communities at the time.

In the case of Kilkenny we provided the best model of practice to deal with this matter. There was no communication with the local community, no understanding of what went on and the local community felt bulldozed and abandoned by the State. I am clear about how I feel and how the local community felt, particularly when we offered a model that cared for 120 unfortunate people in a site that was a ten-minute walk away from this particular location at a time when there were no services available to them. That is still the case. These people had no services or support and were abandoned, yet the Office of Public Works was prepared to do this.

If we dealt with every court case we come up against by running away the State would be the loser. We are in these cases because we believe our position is justified. Otherwise, all a person would have to do to stop accommodation projects for asylum seekers would be to threaten to take the State to court in the expectation that we would run away every time. We cannot do that. We have a duty to house people. We knew we would come up against a certain amount of opposition and we cannot walk away just because there is a court case. We may well make a judgment, taking everything into account, it might be the right course but we cannot automatically walk away. It is impossible and is not an option.

Deputy McGuinness

To move on to Broc House, as long as the Department is at that point with that sort of mindset it will cost it €184,000 per year on-going in Kilkenny. It bought Broc House for in excess of €9 million and spent €500,000 on security there up to early this year. Thus, there are ongoing security and legal costs in both of those cases. This issue trundles on and is costing the State that amount of money. If the enterprise was in the private sector, the developer would certainly have walked away from it and saved some money. The Department will have to review this. The Department is not seen as a body that would abandon the project. The Department did opt to abandon in the case of Devereux Hotel and, in a way, the Department has sold that property.

OPW bought Ionad Follain in Myshall for €1.3 million and that property has accumulated costs of €176,000 and €18,000, all of which relates to this year but to a part of it. I am sure the costs have acceded by far the figures I quoted. That property, purchased for €1.3 million, has now deteriorated considerably because it has been left vacant for some time. Having pursued that one, Office of Public Works has got rid of Devereux Hotel but is left with Leggetsrath and Broc House. It managed to pass this across to the Department of Health and Children, which amounted to passing the buck. It was in the hands of the Department of Health and Children and was passed on to the South-Eastern Health Board. On the involvement of the South-Eastern Health Board, officials from the Department of Health of Children are present and they can answer the following question: what will the South-Eastern Health Board do with the property?

Mr. Dalton

May I leave that question to the Department of Health and Children and return to the other points Deputy McGuinness made? The costs, in the case of Broc House and in the other cases before the courts, will come to an end when decisions are handed down by the courts. In fact, in the case of Broc House, as far as I know, we are awaiting a decision - the case has been heard. These are not endless costs. They will end when a decision of the courts is handed down.

On what happens in the private sector as regards settlements, some of the most notorious and lengthy cases here have been private sector cases. In fact, the reason so many lawyers are rich is that many people in the private commercial sector are involved in cases for years. Neither is it the case in the private sector that sides just walk away because costs are mounting.

We had a very good reason for not walking away because, as I said, it would prevent us thereafter from doing anything for asylum seekers. We could not sustain the position of walking away any time we have a writ waved at us.

If we thought that we were wrong and if the advice we were getting was that we were absolutely wrong, we would walk away and we certainly would not sustain court proceedings against that background. In each case, however, our advice is that we have sustainable cases and, until such time as we get alternative legal advice, I am afraid we will press ahead with the cases.

I cannot answer for the South-Eastern Health or the Department of Health and Children.

Mr. Ingoldsby

The property, as the committee will be aware, was offered by Office of Public Works to the Department of Health and Children and this offer was accepted by the Minister for Health and Children. Discussions then took place on finalising the arrangements for transferring the property to the South-Eastern Health Board in whose area the property is located. Under existing legislation, however, I understand that Office of Public Works can only transfer property to a Minister free of charge. Consequently, the property had to be transferred first to the Minister for Health and Children and then, by him, to the South-Eastern Health Board.

The current position is that the Minister for Health and Children's title to the property was registered in the Land Registry in April 2003 and the Chief State Solicitor's office then commenced the process of transferring the property to the South-Eastern Health Board. In this regard, I understand that the Chief State Solicitor's office is awaiting a response from the South-Eastern Health Board's solicitors and our information from the health board is that the completion of conveyancing is hoped to be achieved by the end of this year.

On the Deputy's question about what is happening in the South-Eastern Health Board, at the request of the Department of Health and Children the chief executive officer of the health board has set up a group to look into the potential uses of the lands and the buildings at Myshall. The terms of reference of that group are as follows: to identify the potential health care uses for the property, including the proposed use by the Irish Society for Autism but not limited to that use; to evaluate the feasibility of each of the proposed developments - this valuation obviously would include the appropriateness of the development having regard to the location, accessibility, scope for future development, capital costs, revenue costs and the potential return on the investment, in both qualitative and quantitative terms. The group has also been asked to prepare a recommendation on what should now be done with the property. The health board has informed us that it hopes that the group will be in a position to deliver a report by the end of February 2004.

Deputy McGuinness

On the health board's involvement in the property at Myshall, one of the reasons put forward for it being unsuitable for asylum seekers was that it was so remote. It was in an outlying area, in Myshall, and there were transport difficulties, etc. That property has been idle since Office of Public Works purchased it in July 2000. I find that extraordinary.

In September 2003 the Department of Health and Children indicated that it was considering giving an undertaking to a feasibility study on the lands and buildings at Myshall to determine how the health services could maximise the benefits of this acquisition. It is my understanding, however, that there will be significant capital costs associated with whatever use is made of the property. The Department was, obviously, indicating, on 30 September, that there is a problem on the capital cost issue and what use it might get out of that building. One is back then to issues of value for money and of the purchase of the building in the first place. The Department is not out of the woods yet and just seems to be passing the problem from one agency to another.

The Leggetsrath property is situated right opposite the health board office and this is where public anger enters the equation. While the health board talks of bringing communities and public opinion with it, it cannot get the funding to provide 30 beds for the elderly at a time when there is a green field site across the road that is not in use.

I am of the opinion that that property in Kilkenny would never get planning permission. That is the indication Office of Public Works was given when that agency looked at it first. Had it not used the ministerial order, it would not have got planning permission. I cannot understand the Department saying that Office of Public Works looks at, and carries out reports on, these sites. I acknowledge that the Office of Public Works might find the site for the Department but is this the best location for the kind of use concerned, particularly given that there are no services at that location?

There is a need, in the context of getting value for money and the best services possible, to look at that again because the location the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform uses ten minutes walk from there is for 120 or 100 people. There are 74 in it and there are people living, and supported, in the communities. From where does the Department get those figures?

The last property I want to mention is Lynch's Lodge Hotel in Cork. Some €19.3 million is tied up in all of these properties and some of these may redeem more than half of that money if Office of Public Works sells them or moves them on. There seems to be an in-built loss to the State of approximately half that sum, or almost €11 million. Leaving aside the property at Myshall, has Office of Public Works carried out a valuation of the remaining properties, Lynch's Lodge Hotel and Broc House? Those are the only two properties capable of being sold because Office of Public Works has given the other property to the Department of Health and Children, has lost on Devereux Hotel and is losing money on Leggetsrath every day the agency waits for the judge to hand down his decision.

Mr. Benton

The only comment I can make is that I can confirm Office of Public Works has not carried out recent valuations because our understanding is that the intention is to use the sites and we would not usually carry out valuations in those circumstances.

Mr. Dalton

The costs associated with the care of refugees in general is running at approximately €360 million a year. We have done quite a lot to bring down those costs. I acknowledge we are in difficulties with these properties because people have exercised, as I stated, their right to take proceedings against us. I do not believe the loss will be of the amount indicated because, as Deputy McGuinness stated, some of the properties in question may be used or sold. We will not know what will happen until the courts decide.

It is not the case that we are cavalier about the costs of refugee accommodation generally, which is expensive. Mr. Waters will be able to explain, if necessary, what we have done precisely to drive down costs in all areas. In many of the 70 to 80 centres still in operation we have driven down costs significantly.

Yes. It is the cost of making provision for asylum seekers. It is not only the cost of accommodation but is a general cost. The estimated cost of providing for asylum seekers in 2002 was €342 million.

Mr. Waters

I have further details. The cost to our Department in 2002 was €45.4 million. The costs pertaining to other Departments in 2002 were as follows: Department of Social and Family Affairs, €135 million; Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, €89 million; Department of Health and Children, approximately €50 million; and Department of Education and Science, €15 million. The Office of Public Works cost would have been in the order of €7 million.

The cost for people in State accommodation is about €11,000 per person.

The Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform was concerned about this from a different perspective. We were concerned that we may have had similar experiences to those that occurred in other jurisdictions where serious race difficulties arose. While some cases have come before the courts, this society has done quite well.

Deputy Boyle

I am surprised at the Department's deficiency in local political knowledge in each of these cases. Maybe the lessons have been learned. However, I see the need for a preliminary assessment before entering a consultation process. This was lacking in each of these cases and the Department seemed surprised at the response.

Mr. Dalton

Hundreds of people have been accommodated in cases where the ministerial order was used. We would not have used ministerial orders if we had a choice.

Chairman

Did the Attorney General advise you to use this order?

Mr Dalton

Yes.

Chairman

That was your trump card in this case. The Attorney General advised that the ministerial order provided for in section 2 of the Local Government (Planning and Development) Act 1993 was the derogation and entitlement in certain areas on the opening of these centres to bypass the planning regulations.

Mr. Dalton

That is the advice we had. It is regrettable we had to resort to that device but it was unavoidable.

Deputy Dennehy

Has the problem now been dealt with? Are we now acquiring sites or facilities in the country and is there any further need for them?

Mr. Waters

I would be slow to say we will never require these facilities again. We are back to the numbers we would have had in mid-1997, with 400 or 500 people coming in each month. By the end of 1997, that figure had increased to 1,100 per month. We are not in the marketplace at the moment beyond the cases we are addressing today. I cannot say we will never need additional accommodation. If someone were to come to us with an offer of accommodation, we would look at it closely.

Deputy Dennehy

Arising from the Chairman's comments about the use of derogation and policy decisions, we tend to examine issues which arose three or four years ago while forgetting the atmosphere which pervaded at the time. I tried to get accommodation for the elderly in a local hotel which had been tendered for sale. Two members of the technical staff of the health board visited the property to see if it would be suitable.

Did we take the easy option in these cases? If we had taken the initiative, things could have been different. In the Cork region there was a proven need for 360 beds for step-down care. For the past three years everyone has been aware that the hospitals have been choked with people for whom this level of care is not appropriate, such as elderly people who cannot go out for obvious reasons. At the same time the State is in possession of a brand new hotel which was newly built and commissioned. Our need was short-term - I am not talking about turning the hotel into a nursing home or anything of the sort. If it was up to me I would suggest using it for step-down care even for a period of six months during the winter, but it seemed the will was not there to achieve this.

No. The Chief State Solicitor and the Attorney General are arms of the State. They are civil servants.

Deputy McGuinness

It does cost in terms of people's time and money. If they were not doing this work they could be doing something else. Surely that is factored into the expenses? I made the point earlier about cutting losses and getting out. The property does not then fall into continual disrepair. It is not necessary to have ongoing security or maintenance, the Office of Public Works is not in court every day of the week. People could be doing something else more productive. Mr. Dalton has a job to do but I am at cross-purposes with him because I cannot understand this. He need not tell me that it happens in the private sector and give long examples of court hearings. I can give equally long lists of cases that were settled when two people faced one another across a table and decided that they were not going anywhere, that it was costing a fortune so they cut their losses and got out. We should be doing that. We are getting poor value for money by maintaining our position on this. It is damaging to the Department, to local communities and to the political process. The South-Eastern Health Board faces one of those properties. I have said it takes €1.9 million to provide a 30 bed unit which the Office of Public Works cannot get but the neighbouring farmer with a greenfield site, without a block laid, is getting €184,000 a year. That is the frustration with which we must deal.

Mr. Dalton

To respond generally, the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform is involved, sadly, in hundreds of cases every year of all kinds because of what happens. There are about 22,000 people working in that sector and it is inevitable that between the police service, the Prison Service and so on there are hundreds of cases. We settle many of them where that is the reasonable and right thing to do. If settlement were an option in one of these cases and did not damage the programme generally, we would opt for the sensible course. The problem, as I tried to explain earlier, is that if we abandon cases on the grounds that somebody opposed us on the placement of refugees, we would have a serious humanitarian crisis on our hands.

In case someone misinterpreted what was said, I know the Deputy did not intend to imply that the Department or the refugee Reception and Integration Agency adopted an uncaring approach. It did not but it was in a terribly difficult situation. Many protections have since been built around this, including the funding of worthy groups in County Kilkenny and elsewhere. Nothing that I said was meant to imply that the approach in County Kilkenny was anything but proper and honourable and there was nothing unusual about it compared to anywhere else. There is the unfortunate court case on the matter but so too in other situations. The committees involved in County Kilkenny have done a good job which is why the Department is funding them.

Mr. Ingoldsby

In response to Deputy Fleming's comment, we will bring the concerns raised immediately to the attention of the South-Eastern Health Board. There is a deadline for its working group at the end of February. It will be urged to meet it and the Department of Health and Children will keep in touch with it to discuss the outcome.

Chairman

Can the Department also keep the Public Accounts Committee informed on the matter?

Mr. Benton

I can give Deputy McGuinness information on costs for security and other matters up to the end of November 2003. For Broc House, Donnybrook, the costs were €451,895.70. For Lynch's Lodge Hotel, Macroom, County Cork, they came to €472,094.56. The lease arrangement in County Kilkenny is a six month rolling one. The costs of the actual buildings are included in the contract settlement figure of €2,226,000 which is of the order of up to 80% of that figure.

Deputy McGuinness

I am anxious to get that information because the public perception is that the builder walked away with in excess of €2 million.

Mr. Benton

We have attempted on many occasions——

Deputy McGuinness

The witnesses may shake their heads. I dare not shake my head. I want to know what the costs were.

Mr. Benton

I will be happy to provide that information to the Deputy.

Deputy Noonan

Deputy Noonan

Deputy McGuinness referred to the Leggetsrath property. We have four or five sets of units in storage - I am not quite sure how many - and we are paying storage fees for them. There may be uses to which they can be put. I see Mr. Benton is shaking his head so perhaps they are not in storage but they are not being used. Only one out of a set of five has been used. Whether or not they are in storage, they are not being used and we certainly were paying for storage at one stage.

Deputy Dennehy mentioned Lynch's Hotel which is a fine facility and an asset, although there are difficulties because the matter is in court. I do not know intuitively whether there would be that much local opposition to using it as a step-down facility, particularly as it is so well appointed. That is an asset that is not being used.

St. Vincent's Hospital wanted to use Broc House for nurses' accommodation and other uses. Admittedly, some work may have to be done in order to bring it up to scratch for them but it is lying idle.

The issue of the Devereux Hotel did not surface today. There were dreadful difficulties down there at the time and I am glad the Accounting Officer did not describe them graphically. However, there was an agreement to sell that property. Whether it was necessary to make a commitment to sell it to allay local fears is a moot point because in doing that one could not use it for anything else. It was offered to the Garda Síochána, the health board and one of the area partnerships but they said: "There is no point in us going in there if we are going to be out in six months or a year". There would have been no point in refurbishing it to meet their needs if a commitment had been made to the local community to sell the place. Those are the kind of issues about which one might ask whether the Department or its agents acted in the best interests of value for money. Having heard all the evidence, it is up to the committee to decide on those issues and to report on them.

Chairman

Yes.

Mr. Purcell

I will leave it at that. I would not like to influence the committee too much.

Mr. Dalton

I would like to make a few brief comments. We are proceeding on the basis that, if there is to be a criticism, underlying the concept of value for money must be the possibility that one could have done better. In these cases, what prevented us from doing better - and there will be some loss - was not within the State's control. It was the fact that people exercised their constitutional right to take proceedings against us. There is a loss but I respectfully submit it is not something we can do much about, as long as we have a Constitution and people have rights.

As a matter of accuracy, it is not the case that the State was involved in ministerial order disputes in two purchases. It was the case in one purchase only. The other case, in Pembroke Road, was not a purchase and, in fact, I do not think that any arrangement has been entered into.

It is not true that one State agency gazumped another. I do not have all the background details on this but we were not aware that the autism people had an interest in Myshall. In fact, while they had an interest, it was not of any substantial value because I understand they did not have any money. Therefore, while they had an interest they had no money which is a rather vague interest. The Department of Health and Children may be in a position to help them subsequently but that interest was somewhat theoretical at the time.

Deputy Dennehy referred earlier to step-down facilities and we would acknowledge that there are issues we have to examine. We will certainly do so in the Macroom case that was mentioned. We were not approached by anybody but if elderly people are seeking accommodation and we are told by the legal people that it is all right to do so, we will be helpful in that regard.

Deputy Dennehy

I know there is a proven need for 360 beds as I commissioned the survey when I was chairman of the health board. That is one aspect of the formula and I hope the Department can work from there.

Mr. Ingoldsby

It was mentioned that one arm of the State had gazumped another in purchasing the Carlow property but that property was not earmarked for autistic children by any State body. An interest was expressed in it by the Irish Society for Autism but that is the only earmarking that had been done, which was quite outside the State's ambit. Even to this date, on the State's behalf, the premises have not yet been earmarked for a particular service. I hope that will be clarified at the end of February 2004.

Mr. O’Farrell

It is probably not necessary to restate the point of clarification because the Comptroller and Auditor General has adverted to it. However, the Department of Finance is not saying that the outcome in every one of those 22 cases was the most satisfactory. Anyone can be ambushed by events and when one looks at matters retrospectively they can appear to be different. It is beneficial for the future to examine outcomes in light of the Comptroller and Auditor General's report. However, one has to consider the crisis that was faced by the Department of Finance and the Office of Public Works in 1969. Given the knowledge and advice available at that time, I certainly could not call anything differently from the course that was taken.

Chairman

Mr. Purcell has dealt with the value for money question. We started off with an investment of €19 million and, to date, we have lost more than €6 million. I sincerely hope that decisive action will be taken to put the remaining properties to good use once these matters have been dealt with in the courts. I thank Mr. Purcell for his detailed report. Today's debate has clarified some issues but the committee would like to be kept updated.

Mr. Waters

I would be anxious to get an updated report on the position in Sligo.

Deputy Dennehy

I suggest that the committee revisit this matter and conclude it after the court decisions. That is the critical aspect of the matter and it is beyond our control. It could put a different complexion on it because there is talk of the sale of property. We should keep the matter under review. I agree that the report was excellent and contains a considerable amount of detail. In fact, most of our questions were answered by it. It was a useful part of the exercise. I suggest we keep this under review because the critical factor, and what will prove people right or wrong, will be the judicial decision on which we are not allowed comment.

Chairman

In light of the pending court cases, I accept Deputy Dennehy's recommendation. Due to the the degree of urgency of getting this matter resolved, I will not note this Vote today.

The agenda for the next meeting will be as follows: the 2002 Annual Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General and Appropriation Accounts, Office of the Revenue Commissioners - Vote 9, Chapters 2.1 to 2.6, inclusive, (resumed) and Chapters 2.7 to 2.10, inclusive.

COMMITTEE OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTS díospóireacht - Thursday, 4 Dec 2003

2002 Annual Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General and Appropriation Accounts.

Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform-

Chapter 4.1 Provision of Accommodation for Asylum Seekers.

Mr. Tim Dalton

Mr. Sean Benton

Mr. Brendan Ingoldsby

Mr. Jim O’Farrell

Mr. John Purcell

Mr. Dalton

Mr. Dalton

Mr. Dalton

Mr. Dalton

Mr. Dalton

Mr. Dalton

Mr. Dalton

Mr. Dalton

Mr. Dalton

Mr. Benton

Mr. Dalton

Mr. Noel Waters

Mr. Benton

Mr. Benton

Mr. Dalton

Mr. Dalton

Mr. Dalton

Mr. Ingoldsby

Mr. Benton

Mr. Dalton

Mr. Waters

Mr. Waters

Mr. Waters

Mr. Dalton

Mr. Dalton

Mr. Dalton

Mr. Dalton

Mr. Dalton

Mr. Dalton

Mr. Dalton

Mr. Dalton

Mr. Dalton

Mr. Dalton

Mr. Waters

Mr. Waters

Mr. Waters

Mr. Dalton

Mr. Waters

Mr. Benton

Mr. Benton

Mr. Benton

Mr. Benton

Mr. Benton

Mr. Benton

Mr. Benton

Mr. Benton

Mr. Benton

Mr. Benton

Mr. Benton

Mr. Benton

Mr. Benton

Mr. Benton

Mr. Benton

Mr. Benton

Mr. Dalton

Mr. Dalton

Mr. Dalton

Mr. Benton

Mr. Benton

Mr. Dalton

Mr. Waters

Mr. Waters

Mr. Waters

Mr. Dalton

Mr. Waters

Mr. Waters

Mr. Waters

Mr. Waters

Mr. Waters

Mr. Waters

Mr. Waters

COMMITTEE OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTS díospóireacht -
Thursday, 4 Dec 2003