Departmental Contracts

Wednesday, 7 October 2026

Ceisteanna (2)

Gary Gannon

Ceist:

2. Deputy Gary Gannon asked the Minister for Justice, Home Affairs and Migration further to his previous evidence to the Oireachtas justice committee concerning the number of providers arising from the cancellation of pre-contract accommodation agreements, and in light of the Comptroller and Auditor General’s report identifying legal proceedings involving five providers, to account for the difference between those figures; the status of each of the remaining cases or agreements referred to by him; whether any additional settlements or payments have been made in respect of them; and the total financial exposure to the State arising from the cancellation of these agreements. [70965/26]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Freagraí ó Béal (5 píosaí cainte)

Deputy Jim O'Callaghan

I thank the Deputy for his question. At the outset, I will identify the savings that have been made as a result of decisions and policies put in place by the Minister of State, Deputy Brophy, and me. The Deputy will be aware that, in 2024, the expenditure on accommodation for Ukrainians by the Department was €1.16 billion. As a result of decisions made by the Minister of State and me, in next year's budget, we are looking for just €257 million in the budget for accommodation for Ukrainians.

In 2024, IPAS accommodation cost €1.005 billion and, in 2025, it rose to €1.27 billion. In 2026, the allocation was €1.1 billion and 2027 will see further reductions of more than €250 million on IPAS accommodation compared with the 2026 allocation. The decisions and policies being put in place by the Minister of State and me are saving the State money by reducing our expenditure.

The Deputy highlighted the Comptroller and Auditor General's report, which referred to 14 IPAS accommodation contracts that were not proceeded with in 2025. I will not go into the detail about why they were not proceeded with, but I have said publicly previously that the main reason I did not proceed with them was a concern for public safety. The Deputy who represents areas will know public safety concerns were a real issue in 2024 and 2025. As has been indicated in the report of the Comptroller and Auditor General, proceedings were initiated against me by five providers. Others threatened to bring them and there is other litigation by a person who did not have a pre-contract accommodation agreement, but still says we should have proceeded with a commitment. The total value of those contracts was over €100 million and as has been indicated by the Comptroller and Auditor General, there have been settlements in respect of three of them and two cases are outstanding. I will not get into the detail of the amounts paid in those settlements because other cases are ongoing.

Deputy Gary Gannon

That leaves us in a difficult position because we are talking about a serious amount of public money, which has not been accounted for and we cannot find. We had a back and forth about this on 3 March in the justice committee. I asked the Minister a number of questions and some discrepancies remain in his answers. I asked at that meeting if there was a contingent liability and the Minister said he did not believe there was at that point. The Comptroller and Auditor General has expressly found that these agreements created significant contingent liabilities for the Exchequer. Will the Minister explain the discrepancy between what he told the committee on 3 March and what we discovered in the past week?

He also told the committee in March that there were potentially nine outstanding cases. The Comptroller and Auditor General has found five. The Minister referenced a further case in his contribution. Will he tell us about the rest?

It is also important to say that this is a significant amount of public money. The Minister has talked about savings to the State based on his decisions. What are the actual costs of those decisions and what are the real savings, as opposed to the nett, which the Minister has told us about?

Deputy Jim O'Callaghan

When I am before the Oireachtas committee on justice, I am not before a court of law. The Deputy can ask me a question about anything and I will try to ensure I give him as much information as I can. What I said in the committee meeting was that I thought there were eight cases and certainly fewer than ten. I was not certain at the time. However, there are five cases. I am aware there is another case as well so it is around six cases. I do not think I should be enormously criticised for that. Otherwise, when I come before the committee, I will be extremely reticent and not try to be of assistance to the committee. I think the Deputy would prefer me to be as open as possible before committee.

I will not get into the settlement amounts. They have been categorised as accrued expenses and the Comptroller and Auditor General identified that in his report. Ultimately, though, this information will be available in the public domain, once the other cases have been resolved. It would be totally inappropriate for me to now say what was paid in other cases when individuals are suing me on the basis that they want me to open IPAS centres in certain areas, or if not, to pay them the money they would have made in respect of them. That is in effect what the cases are about. I am going to defend those cases.

Deputy Gary Gannon

What the Minister told the committee and the public, in his own words, is that there are be €120 million of savings. Clearly, that will not be the case. This comes back to a significant cost to the public, paid for by the Exchequer. While people may be suing the Minister, the costs are borne by the public and we have a right to know what those costs are, based on bad agreements, which we never went into.

It is important to say, the committee is absolutely not a court of law, but we as public representatives and spokespeople on justice have a right to scrutinise and ask questions and have an expectation of responses. I do not believe the responses the Minister gave to the committee captured what the Comptroller and Auditor General captured in his report last week. Was the information available at the time?

We are talking about an extraordinary waste of public money. We do not know the figure but we are talking about people being paid money for contracts that were never fulfilled. Do we want IPAS centres to be opened? Where there is a need, maybe, but we do not want public money going into the hands of people who did not provide a service and for us not to be able to establish the cost of that to the Exchequer.

Deputy Jim O'Callaghan

Had I entered into the pre-contract agreements, the State would have been exposed to more than €100 million in payments. I did not go ahead with them because I had a fear at the time for public safety in respect of the issues. That is why I did not proceed with them. With the greatest respect, the consequence, although it might not have been the intention, of what I did was to save the State from having to spend more than €100 million. Individuals who claim they had pre-contract agreements wanted to enter into proceedings against the State. Some did while many did not. There are six cases, five of which are pre-contract and one other I am aware of. Others threatened to bring a case. The divergence between what I said in the committee and what is the situation is not that different. I said there were eight, maybe nine and certainly fewer than ten cases, so we are talking about a difference between eight and six. I will certainly be more reticent the next time I am before the committee. This is about ensuring public money is protected, and although it might not have been the intention, the effect of this decision was to save the State money.