This morning, we will engage with the Department of Justice, Home Affairs and Migration to examine the Comptroller and Auditor General's Report on the Accounts of the Public Services 2022 - Chapter 9, assessing cyber security in the public sector; and the Report on the Accounts and of the Public Services 2024 - Chapter 9, the criminal justice operational hub, and Chapter 10, management of international protection accommodation contracts.

On behalf of the committee, I welcome Ms Oonagh McPhillips, Secretary General; Mr. Doncha O'Sullivan, deputy secretary general; Mr. Conor Rowley, assistant secretary general; Mr. Richard Dixon, director; Mr. David Delaney, assistant secretary general; Ms Fidelma Browne, principal officer; Mr. Neil Ward, assistant secretary general; and Mr. Richard Browne, director. We are also joined, from the Department of Public Expenditure, Infrastructure, Public Service Reform and Digitalisation, by Ms Jenny Connors, principal officer, who is attending in a representative capacity. Finally, we are joined by officials from the Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General, including the Comptroller and Auditor General, Mr. Seamus McCarthy, who is a permanent witness to the committee; and Ms Mairead Leyden, audit manager. The witnesses are all welcome to the meeting this morning.

Before we begin, I wish to explain some limitations to parliamentary privilege and the practice of the Houses as regards references the witnesses may make to other persons in their evidence. The evidence of witnesses physically present, or who give evidence from within the parliamentary precincts, is protected, pursuant to both the Constitution and statute, by absolute privilege. This means they have an absolute defence against any defamation action for anything they say at the meeting. Witnesses are, however, expected not to abuse this privilege and it is my duty as Cathaoirleach to ensure that this privilege is not abused. Therefore, if witnesses' statements are potentially defamatory in relation to an identifiable person or entity, they will be directed to discontinue their remarks. It is imperative that they comply with any such direction.

Witnesses are also reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice that they should not criticise or make charges against any person or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable, or otherwise engage in speech that might be regarded as damaging to the good name of the person or entity.

I call the Comptroller and Auditor General, Mr. Seamus McCarthy, to make his opening statement.

I do not propose to make an opening statement today. All of these items have previously been presented to the committee.

I thank Mr. McCarthy. I call the Secretary General to deliver the opening statement on behalf of the Department of Justice, Home Affairs and Migration. As set out in the letter of invitation, Ms McPhillips has five minutes to make her opening statement.

I thank the Chair for the invitation to assist the committee this morning. In the interests of the committee's time, I do not propose to repeat what I said in October on the 2024 accounts. It was circulated to members for their information at the time and I have sent it again this week.

Since we last met, the committee has corresponded with me and I hope the responses provided have been of assistance. I am happy to go into further details on these or other matters, as members require.

In its invitation, the committee highlighted the funding of Ukraine accommodation and related costs as an area it wished to discuss so I will concentrate on that in this brief opening statement.

As the committee will be aware, between 2022 and 2024, 114,000 people arrived in Ireland seeking temporary protection, having fled the war in Ukraine. Arrivals subsequently continued at a much reduced level so that we have, overall, received more than 126,000 people from Ukraine to date, with an estimated 80,000 remaining in the State. This precipitated the largest humanitarian response in the history of the State, with a remarkable response seen from Government, State agencies and civil society, and from local communities and organisations right across the country. I am proud of the work done by colleagues across all the public service in that regard.

The war in Ukraine, as well as the concurrent increase in applications for international protection and an ongoing housing crisis, all placed exceptional demands on the State's protection and accommodation systems and required a major operational scale-up. This meant that emergency sourcing of a wide range of accommodation options was essential. The then Accounting Officer previously informed this committee that the emergency accommodation sourced to support people from Ukraine in 2022 included hotels, bed and breakfast accommodation, guest houses, hostels, self-catering accommodation, repurposed and refurbished buildings, sports centres and arenas, scouting facilities, properties offered by religious and voluntary bodies, student accommodation, military facilities, temporary tented facilities and local authority emergency rest centres, as well as accommodation pledged in people's homes or available housing.

At peak, the Ukraine response was providing State accommodation directly for over 60,000 people, and supporting additional numbers through the accommodation recognition payment, ARP, scheme. Since it commenced in 2022, the ARP scheme has supported the accommodation of some 63,000 people outside of State-contracted accommodation. In 2024, approximately €141.5 million was issued to some 15,000 hosts accommodating 34,500 beneficiaries.

Approximately 42,000 people are currently living in almost 23,500 hosted arrangements with the support of the scheme. The ARP scheme is currently in place until 31 March 2026 but may be extended by ministerial order in accordance with the governing legislation.

Since 2024, that emergency has receded and the scaling-up has become a gradual decline, as things began to change for the Ukrainian people here, and in the wider circumstances of the war. Many people who were in State-supported accommodation, all of whom have access to the labour market, began to source their own accommodation independently. Some people chose to return to Ukraine, or to move to other countries, often reuniting with family or friends. The trend since 2024 up to the current time is one of gradual reduction in demand and, therefore, in the cost to the State.

In 2024, an allocation of €1.429 billion was provided for Ukraine accommodation which was then in Vote 40, the former Department of Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth. This allocation was reduced to €1.226 billion in the Supplementary Estimate that year. By the end of the year, the ultimate outturn for 2024 was further reduced to €1.165 billion, an overall reduction of €264 million on the original allocation.

The savings in this area were primarily attributable, as I have outlined, to reduced demand for commercial accommodation, which enabled a consolidation of the commercial accommodation portfolio. This included proactive measures, such as contract terminations, and rate and vacancy reductions, which continue to deliver cost savings.

A total of €738 million in funding transferred into the Justice Vote on 1 May 2025 and since then the costs have further reduced, bringing the allocation to €727 million in the Supplementary Estimate. The provisional outturn for 2025 was €719 million, and a provision of €607 million has been made available in respect of Ukraine accommodation for this year.

This still represents a very considerable cost in terms of public money, though reducing, as I have outlined. The committee will be aware that, combined with the over 33,000 residents currently supported by IPAS, and ongoing housing shortages across society, there remains great pressure on accommodation services in the State at this time.

The Ukraine and international protection accommodation teams have worked in parallel through these very intense times, and have delivered safety and shelter for many tens of thousands of people in urgent need. As the pressure began to reduce on both teams since 2024, good progress has been made on improving governance and achieving better value for money for the State.

While temporary protection remains in place across the EU until 2027, my Department is advancing measures, as outlined in the EU Council recommendation, for a co-ordinated and phased transition out of temporary protection. This is being progressed across government and in close liaison with other member states, with the aim of supporting Ukraine and those who have fled the war there. I am happy to go into further detail as members require.

I thank Ms McPhillips for that. Please note that we will suspend the meeting at 12 noon for ten to 15 minutes for a short break. We will resume shortly thereafter. I will now open the floor to members. The lead speaker today is Deputy Neville, who has 15 minutes. All other members have ten minutes. If time permits at the end, we will allow members back in for a short supplementary round of questions at that point.

I thank the witnesses for coming in today, especially so soon after their previous appearance. The Comptroller and Auditor General, Mr. McCarthy, alluded to that when he said he did not have an opening statement because the witnesses had been before the committee previously. This follow-up meeting to our previous meeting is due to the scale of spending in the Department. As a country, and as a group of individuals here, we are trying to get our heads around the spend because it is so unusual in the context of the characteristics of how the State is run and spends money. In the previous meeting, much of the conversation was about IPAS spending. We said we would focus on the Ukrainian spend today. We will cover all areas because money has not been spent in this way before. The figures McPhillips mentioned are huge, so we might go through some of those big numbers from the last number of years. While we will look towards 2025 and 2026 spending, we are obviously focusing on the financial statements from 2024.

The system has been put in place and a lot of people have benefited financially from it. The Department has looked after a lot of people too, and I am very conscious of the people the State has looked. At the same time, a lot of individuals have made significant money and become significantly wealthy from this. That is why there is significant interest in how the State is spending its money. The industry around IPAS and Ukrainian housing has grown at astonishing rates as well. That is why we are focusing on it.

I wish to clarify the numbers. Sometimes, there is a question about the Ukraine spend and the spend on IPAS. The Department differentiates between them but people sometimes work on the assumption that there is one number for both areas. Can the Department clarify the Ukrainian versus IPAS spend in 2024?

In 2024, the IPAS total spend was €1.06 billion. The Ukraine spend in 2024 was €1.164 billion. Between the two, it was €2.2 billion.

Does that €2.2 billion all go to third-party contractors?

No. I mean-----

That is all right. I just wanted clarity. Ms McPhillips can tell me. I am just asking the question.

Sure.

If it is not all going to third parties, how much of it is?

I will deal with the Ukraine and IPAS figures separately, if that is okay, because that is the way it is accounted for.

That is perfect. That is the best way to do it.

In relation to Ukraine, the commercial accommodation split of that is €861 million, which is 74%, in 2024-----

When Ms McPhillips describes-----

Sorry, I would like to complete it because there is another big chunk. The accommodation recognition payment, ARP, is €146 million. It supports people hosting people in their homes. That is about 12.5%.

Of the €1.164 billion spend in 2024, Ms McPhillips is saying that €800 million was for accommodation.

Yes, €800 million was for commercial accommodation.

Yes, commercial accommodation. The rest was payments to individuals who are-----

It is payments to people who are hosting people in their homes.

Yes, but they are all-----

Sorry, that is not the rest of it; it is another 12%. We also have payments to local authorities, totalling €40.5 million, facility management costs, Ukraine support costs, Citywest and support services, as well as a capital spend. In total, the spend is €1.164 billion, of which €861 million is commercial.

In fairness, I said third party rather than commercial. It is all third-party spend, whether individual or commercial. It is people who are not the State, as such.

That figure of €861 million is, yes.

It is commercial.

My point is that it is not all commercial.

Yes, I know. I just said third party. It is individuals as well. It could encompass someone sitting in this room who might rent out accommodation and have someone in their house. It is just accommodation. That is the point. We are spending €2.24 billion.

In 2024.

What was the spend in 2025?

I might ask Mr. Rowley to come in because I am sure he is much more fluid on this than I am.

In 2025, the commercial accommodation spend had reduced to €452.380 million from €861 million, as the Secretary General said. The pledge, which is the accommodation recognition payment, increased to €186.401 million. We had an increase in the number of applications for the accommodation recognition payment.

In 2025, there more ordinary individuals looking to house people from Ukraine in 2025 than there were in 2024.

Yes.

Why is that increasing if the other number is going down?

We are actively trying to move people to ARP accommodation. It is far more efficient and effective from an integration point of view, and it is far cheaper. ARP accommodation per night is €11 compared to €50 per night for commercial accommodation.

Jesus. It is four and a half times the price. What accounts for that difference?

There is a good will payment paid to ARP hosts, which is €600. It has been reduced from €800. That is where people are housed in rooms in houses. Commercial accommodation is, by its nature, far more expensive in terms of hotel settings, etc.

Will that top out at about €750 million or €800 million in total between the two?

No. The spends are €452 million and €186 million. I am trying to do quick maths on that.

When the local authority cost is added, it is about €700 million.

Yes. That is coming down in our forecast for 2026 as well. The trajectory of accommodation in commercial settings can be seen to be decreasing substantially.

What are the figures for IPAS in 2025?

I will defer to Mr. Delaney in that regard.

I am open to correction but the spend on the ARP is €191 million for 2025.

That is correct. There is a decrease in the commercial accommodation but an increase in the ARP.

I know.

There has been no net growth since December. There are far more people accommodated under the accommodation recognition payment scheme and there is better value for money in terms of what we are paying.

The ARP is four and a half times cheaper.

The other consideration, as the Deputy will recall, is that the use of commercial accommodation was blocking a lot of tourism infrastructure, such as hotels, bed and breakfasts accommodation and so forth. There was a policy move away from that. The proportions have changed quite substantially.

What was the largest amount of money given to any individual? I know we looked at that before with the IPAS spend where the highest amount received was up to €50 million. Is it similar with the Ukraine money? Were there people-----

There are companies that have been paid quite a lot of money. Does Mr. Rowley have that number handy?

I do not have it to hand but there are not just individual providers but groups that have accommodation and hotels within their group that were paid a significant amount in the past.

I ask for a list of those. We saw a list showing that six or seven providers accounted for €250 million of the IPAS spend. I am just curious to see that.

In the Ukraine spend, the highest payment is €30.7 million. That is at December 2025. The next ones are €12.4 million, €10.4, million, €9.1 million and €7.6 million. They are slightly smaller than the IPAS equivalent. Obviously, it is a different service that is being contracted.

What was the IPAS spending in 2025?

The figures to hand are that we spent €1.22 billion on current expenditure and about €150 million on capital expenditure in 2025.

That is pretty similar. I assume the capital expenditure relates to Citywest.

Predominately, yes.

Where do we see that trending for this year?

I can confirm that our profile for 2026 is €1.18 billion. It is slightly lower. We are currently trending in that direction.

It is sitting above the €1 billion mark.

It is, of course.

When it comes to the changes in immigration, the point of the new immigration Bill is to reduce waiting times for applications.

Should we see that pulling people out of the system and allowing them to go through more quickly? What is the waiting time for a decision to be made on someone going through?

There are probably two ways of analysing that. There is the length of time someone has been in international protection accommodation and, separately, there might be statistics around how long someone has been waiting for a first-instance decision, an appeal or a final decision. The figure I have to hand is that the typical time someone is in IPAS accommodation at the moment is about 24 months, but I am open to correction on that. The Deputy made the point about processing being quicker if people’s time in accommodation was less. That would have a knock-on effect of reducing costs but we would have to see that work through the system.

Do we have an idea of the monthly cost per individual?

The average contracted rate is €71 per person per night with the third party and commercial contractors we have at the moment.

It might be helpful to give the numbers that were in accommodation at the end of December 2024 and the end of December 2025. There were more people in accommodation at the end of December 2025. We contracted those buildings earlier, so they are at a more expensive rate. The costs are coming down over the course of-----

How many people were in accommodation as at 31 December 2025?

Just over 33,000.

How many were there in 2024?

That was 32,700.

Where do we think it will be at the end of 2026?

We do not have a crystal ball at the moment but it will be in or around that. We are trying to drive it down. Obviously, the speeding-up in processing that Mr. Delaney has referenced is contributing to that. Costs are coming down as well, though, which is a different thing. As Mr. Delaney mentioned, there are different ways of looking at this and the overall cost will come down in the cost of 2026 as we move out of those more expensive historical contracts into better value contracts.

I want to change tack. There was a Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission, GSOC, case management system and €2.1 million was spent on that. I believe the contract with the delivery partner was terminated in August 2025. What is the situation with that?

They are regrouping on that. I might ask Mr. Ward to come in on that if that is okay.

The first business case for this project came in in May 2022. Subject to some tweaks, it was approved in August 2022. There was then a significant enough period of procurement and the contract was eventually awarded in February 2024 to a company called Codec.

We have heard of that company here before.

That is the key delivery partner, yes. It was procured as the delivery partner. There were also other providers doing business analysis and project management work.

Do we have a system from the €2.1 million spent?

The system is not yet built, but of that €2.1 million, our assessment is that about three quarters of the spend to date remains of value and will contribute to the completion of the system ultimately. Where it stands at the moment is that Fiosrú is considering options as to how to replace Codec-----

I am conscious of my time. Is Codec gone now?

Yes.

Codec was in place and €2.1 million was spent-----

But not all to Codec. That is an important point.

Okay, fine. Was it overseeing the project?

No.

It was the delivery partner.

Mr. Ward just mentioned its name. I did not even ask about who it was, so I thought it might have been running it.

The amount it received was €525,000.

The Department expects, therefore, that there will be a write-off of that €525,000. The project was costed initially at €4.4 million. Where do we think it is now?

I expect that when Fiosrú figures out a way back to market to identify a new provider, it will eventually require a change request to alter that budget, but that depends on what the market produces.

We do not know; it could be anything. We have written off €500,000 and the final budget might end up being a lot higher.

I am looking at a few other items. In respect of Forensic Science Ireland's application for DNA sample handling, there was an approved budget of €760,000. The final project cost was €2.7 million. Is that correct?

Yes.

That was €2 million over.

It became a different project, I suppose.

One hundred percent. At the very outset, that was a project designed to replace an Excel sheet with very complex macros built into it, which was unstable and a risk-----

No, I get it. I am just trying to see if there is a trend, that is all. Because there was also the establishment of the independent Gambling Regulatory Authority, where there was an approved budget of €1.2 million and a final project cost of €2.6 million.

That was a project overseen by our portfolio oversight committee but not an IT project. The costs actually relate to the staffing costs of establishing the new regulator.

It was time spent.

It was time.

Was the capitalised cost there?

The legislation took longer to come through than anticipated, so the staff were actually on site for longer than we had anticipated at the start.

For the organisation dashboard, there was an approved budget of €1.6 million and a final project cost of €2.3 million. That was a €700,000 overrun.

Again, that was a scope change during the project. A change request was raised. It went through all of our government structures. The scope change was approved and with that there was a resulting increase in cost.

Overall, there was about €4 or €5 million of overruns on those and I have only named four projects. I am not saying there are more but there possibly could be.

I think those are the only ones for which the Deputy will find significant overruns, because we reported on those. The way in which it was managed needs to be understood in terms of the governance. There was very tight governance on it. Those were requests that were acceded to rather than let overrun, if that makes sense.

Every change request made in relation to a project is treated as if it were a stand-alone business case. It is subject to examination by both the technical and financial review group we have in the Department and an oversight committee, which is a subcommittee of our management board and includes external members. People are required to really document in serious terms any proposed change to the scope, time or budget of a project. It is really rigorously analysed.

And lots of them are refused.

No, I get that. This is not a question but, lastly, at the previous meeting, Ryevale House came up quite a bit. The Department has made changes since then and I want to acknowledge that.

I saw the announcement about Ms McPhillips in the news. I offer her my best wishes for her future role. I thank her for coming in twice over the past while.

No problem.

I just wanted to acknowledge those things.

I welcome everyone here today. Is there an update on the domestic violence refuge centres in Cavan and Monaghan. Has anything happened in relation to the opening of either of those yet?

I should apologise because I misspoke on the last day. I mixed up my refuges with my safe homes. There is, as the Deputy knows, a project in Monaghan to build a refuge, which is ongoing. There are safe home projects in both counties but not a refuge in Cavan at the moment. They are still looking for that. Apologies for that.

Again, Cavan and Monaghan are two of nine counties in the whole of Ireland that have no refuges.

The Minister told me one day in the Chamber that the first person to leave the home should be the perpetrator and this is not often the case. Will Ms McPhillips outline what the Department is doing about that?

Quite a bit of policy work is going on around that. Obviously, it should not be the case that the person who suffers the violence has to leave the home. We try to support people to stay in their homes but there are legal and constitutional issues around ownership of the home and so forth, so there is quite a bit of policy work going on-----

What is it?

-----as part of one of the actions under the domestic violence-----

What is the action?

The action is to examine how best to support people to stay in their homes and how we can reverse the trend.

Okay. I was looking at the books. There was an underspend of €2.1 million, or more than 56%, on Cuan arising from delays in onboarding staff. What would have caused those delays? If we are working so hard to ensure women are not being left in the home with perpetrators, why has €2.1 million not been used?

That was 2024. Cuan was established at the beginning of 2024. It started the year with 17 staff and now it has 35 staff. We have funded it for another ten staff to grow further in the course of this year, 2026. The year 2024 was very much the start-up year. We took in staff from the existing functions and we were building it up over the course of the year but there was a great deal of priority attached to it and very enthusiastic people working there as well.

I thank Ms McPhillips for that but she can understand my frustration that we have nothing in Cavan and Monaghan.

Every time I ask anybody, they say we are building towards it and that we are going to get a domestic violence refuge. This has been going since since I was on Monaghan County Council in 2012 and there is still no domestic abuse refuge or safe homes, as Ms McPhillips said.

But there is a site for the refuge in Monaghan and there is work ongoing on that at the moment, so there is progress.

What timeline is there on that?

I will come back to the Deputy on a timeline.

I thank Ms McPhillips very much. I appreciate that.

The Garda in Cavan-Monaghan supports victims very well and does a lot of work. Safe Ireland is involved up there as well and it does a huge amount of work to support victims. I take the Deputy's point, though.

I appreciate that. I thank Ms McPhillips.

I will move on. I commend all the people who have opened up their homes to the Ukrainian beneficiaries of temporary international protection following Russia's brutal and criminal invasion of Ukraine. The manner, however, in which the ARP scheme has operated has been a source of criticism and frustration. Noting that the Government at different points has increased and decreased the payment rate, will Ms McPhillips outline what the initial payment was benchmarked against and why there were adjustments following that?

I am not sure I can because the scheme was in the other Department in 2022 when it was established, so I am just not familiar with-----

Was it €800 at one time and then it went down to €600?

It started at €400 and it went to €800, and then a decision was taken to reduce it to €600 in June 2025.

Does Ms McPhillips know what the reason was for that?

The reason was to try to get better value for the State.

Why did it jump from €400 to €800?

There was also a perception that it was interfering with the private rental market. Conor might want to take that one. He might be familiar with the reason for the change in 2025.

I think it relates to the offer a home scheme. That was a local authority-based scheme where people offered a whole home to people who had fled the war in Ukraine. It was felt that €800 was a suitable price for that. As a result, the ARP was increased in line with it, to cover that.

Who made the decision or why was the decision made that it should be tax-free?

It was a Government decision at the time. It was a policy decision. I will just bring the Deputy through the history of it, if that is any help, because it has, as she says, varied quite a lot. In 2022, €10 million was paid out in respect of 4,000 hosts, which accommodated 8,000 people at that time. To contrast that with 2025, we paid out €187 million to accommodate 42,000 people, with 17,500 hosts involved in it.

What about the year in which the Department was paying €800? Which year was that?

We were paying €800 for half of 2025. In 2023, the total cost was €71 million. There were 9,000 hosts and 20,000 people. In 2024, the cost was €141 million, with 15,000 hosts and 34,500 people. The scheme has been very successful in accommodating people because it has, as I was explaining to Deputy Neville-----

It has been successful for the landlords that were incentivised, as they did not have to pay any tax.

From the beginning of the Ukraine war, an awful lot of people have accommodated Ukrainians in their homes, and this-----

Why was it not taxed? Why did the landlords not have to pay any tax?

That was a policy decision by the Government at the time. I cannot say anything further than that.

On what basis was the payment paid out without the Ukrainian people who were moving into the houses being means-tested?

This payment is made to hosts rather than Ukrainian people. It is made in respect of them hosting Ukrainian people in their houses.

After a year or two years, did the Department ever look back at or review Ukrainian people who are now working here?

This money is not paid to Ukrainian people. It is paid to the people who are hosting them.

In that case, we will go back to the landlords that are getting the money. Was a review of the tenants they had in their houses ever done?

They have to produce evidence that they are hosting the person. Conor might confirm if that is fair.

It is. It is important to say-----

Has a review been done over the four or five years? I have heard that there are people from Ukraine who have very good salaries, who are working here as doctors and nurses, and their landlord is still getting the ARP, but no means test has been done on it and they automatically get their rent paid.

First, there is no means test. It is not necessarily rent. It is a goodwill payment to the host for opening up their accommodation. There is no tenancy agreement in place. It is a goodwill payment paid to people.

Are top-up payments made to landlords as well?

Not that we are aware of, and not that we would recommend. There is a licensing agreement perhaps between the host and the person staying with them in the property. They may give additional money for miscellaneous things like washing.

I just want to go back to the review. If somebody who has come here from Ukraine is working in a really good job, are they still getting their rent paid?

They are not getting the payment.

They are not getting the payment but their rent is still being paid. They have no rent payment.

It is not rent, as Conor was saying.

I know it is an ARP. When somebody comes here and they start work, are they being reviewed or means-tested in any way or are they just getting the rent payment?

The way I would look at it, as Conor said to Deputy Neville, is that the cost to the State is €11 a night, compared with €50 a night in commercial accommodation. That is where the value to the State lies. It is accommodating 42,000 people at the moment.

Were any new contracts signed after 2024?

I might ask Conor to take that. The contracts have been reducing.

Not since mid-2024. The only contracts we have entered into are that we have recontracted a number of 90-day designated accommodation centres, which are now 30-day accommodation centres.

Do we have a list of them?

Yes, we do have a list of them.

Could I have that at some stage, if not today?

Yes, absolutely. I could read them out to the Deputy now if she wants.

Okay, that would be great.

We have ones in Punchestown, Firmbank, Wallslough in Kilkenny, Inchmore in Offaly, and Kill and Newhall, both in Kildare. What happened there was that we had a significant increase in people fleeing the war in Ukraine, attributable to a law that was relaxed in Ukraine, which allowed men between the ages of 18 and 22 to travel. As a result, from August to October, we saw about 2,000 young people coming into the country, so we had to stand up those designated accommodation centres to cater for them.

I thank Conor and everyone.

I thank all the witnesses for being with us again so soon after the last time. We usually say the nice things at the end but I will say them at the beginning. I acknowledge what Deputy Neville said about Ms McPhillips's departure. In her time before the committee, she has always given us a very good engagement. If she is lucky enough in her next role, she might be before us again in some other guise - or unlucky enough.

If he does not mind, I will refer back to Mr. Delaney. In October, we discussed the OECD report in regard to the Development Assistance Committee's cost-per-refugee figure. I am interested in how we compare with other OECD countries. At that stage we were the second highest - I think it was the 2022 figure - per head at just under €20,000 and the UK was at about €25,000 per head. Does he have any indication of where the figures for Ireland might be now? Has the Department given any consideration to that data and to why we are such an outlier in the sense that the cost per head seems to be so much higher?

That is a very good question. I had a quick glance at the report again in advance of this meeting. If we look at the report, there are some countries that I know for a fact are accommodating asylum seekers but their cost per asylum seeker is zero. To be honest, I could not even point to where the ballpark Irish figures mentioned for 2022 and 2023 came from. Equally so, when I look at countries that I have visited and where I have spoken to colleagues at my level, the money they are spending and the number of people they are accommodating does not line up with the report. I would have doubts about making assumptions-----

I think it indicates there were at least seven countries that had not reported.

And some had reported very low costs that did not remotely add up. I must admit I have looked into it a bit further to try to find reasons, but I have not been able to find reasons. Some appear, but I would not want to use assumptions.

The question is whether the Department has examined that question. There are a lot of questions around the way we have contracted, the way it had to be done in such a speedy manner, the whole idea of not having the normal procurement compliance and so on. Has the Department examined where it is in terms of other-----

The lesson learnt from that work is that countries that run their systems well and cost-effectively have predominantly State-owned accommodation. We are definitely moving in that direction. We have gone from 900 applicants living in State accommodation to now having nearly 4,000 State accommodation beds. We intend to continue that comprehensive accommodation strategy policy. That is the right thing to do from an Irish perspective, and I think it reflects lessons learnt from-----

On the previous occasion, the Department indicated that for the State accommodation we have, the price was nearly half that charged by the private contractors.

In addition, we are also in the process of continuing the implementation of our rate card, so we have seen a reduction of 26% in renewed and renegotiated contracts.

When do we believe we will no longer be reliant on private contractors and moving towards a State system?

Unfortunately, that is definitely a medium- to long-term crystal ball. I would not be able to put a timeline on that. There are too many variables at play to be able to point to that.

Given the significant cost, it should be a priority for the Department to be moving-----

The overall objective is 14,000 State-owned places by 2028. We are working towards that.

What is the current capacity?

It is 4,000 in State-----

What is the current total capacity of public and private?

It is 33,000.

Even the 2028 objective is less than half.

The objective is also to process people faster, especially under the forthcoming pact.

My question is how it is not more of an objective to try to reduce the costs. Everyone is saying that a State facility is cheaper and represents better value for money for the taxpayer, but we do not seem to have an objective to reach that, even by 2028.

I do not think we would want to be accommodating 33,000-plus people going forward. That is not the policy objective. The policy objective is to reduce the number in accommodation and to get them-----

The belief is that the 14,000 would be sufficient.

We will always probably need some flex, and the private sector is best placed to do that. We do not want to have empty places lying around the place. My successor would be in here a lot if that were the case. The objective is to bring down the number in accommodation and to have the best value.

From the Department's perspective, given that it is not relying on other countries’ information, what is the cost per head per refugee in Ireland?

As I mentioned to Deputy Neville, we have that contract cost of €71 per person per night. When you factor in-----

I am talking about the annual cost.

For the annual cost, especially with the purchase of Citywest being in that annual cost, it is a bit more difficult to determine the exact cost.

I do not expect the Department to have the figure here. I am using the OECD example, so it is a cost per head per year per refugee. The Department might see if it can identify what that figure is. I accept that there are a lot of variables. The Department might come back to us in writing.

From that timeframe, I definitely would not have confidence in the figure in the OECD report. I do not know how many variables were included.

I accept that. Given that it was indicating that even the Irish figure is not clear, I am asking the Department to come back to us in writing on what the Irish figure is per year.

Again, I am trying to look at the idea of the cost for State accommodation. Anybody who comes out of international protection is fully entitled to apply for housing. I recently met with the DRHE in regard to some of the Dublin figures. There is increasingly an interplay between exit from international protection and those people who are in homeless accommodation. I want to touch on the interaction between the Department of justice, the Department of housing and the costs. Ultimately, they are both State services that are provided.

The indicator from the DRHE for the Dublin figures was that 36% of people in homeless accommodation were non-EEA. In 2025, the reasons given for people being made homeless indicated that, for families, 6.3% were due to leaving direct provision, and 8% were due to family reunification, so both were related to the Department of justice. However, 25% of single people made homeless in Dublin in 2024 were leaving direct provision. That is a significant number. Is that a consequence of us now processing applications more quickly? Is there structural engagement between the Department of justice and the Department of housing with regard to the number of people leaving direct provision and entering homelessness?

If people have status and an entitlement that is derived from status, we do not exit people into homelessness. That is the bottom line. Mr. Delaney can go into more detail.

I am happy to clarify that. To be clear, nobody is moved out of direct provision with status. We accommodate people. We are accommodating 5,000 people who have refugee status.

Does the Department accommodate them outside of the homeless services?

We do. Just to give you a sense-----

The figure from the DRHE is that 25% of single people who presented as homeless cited leaving direct provision. How does that tally with what the Department says about how people are accommodated?

We work very closely with the DRHE and Department of housing colleagues, so I can give the Deputy confidence on that. I think the statistic is that someone who had previously lived in direct provision is now presenting as homeless, as opposed to the idea that they had left direct provision and then presented as homeless.

I am looking at the figures from the DRHE. I realise they are private figures, but this is a report that it produced itself. It says that for single adults, the top reason in 2025 was leaving direct provision. This applied to 427 individuals, which is 25%.

When we have discussed that with colleagues, the slightly summarised detailed explanation is that they have left IPAS accommodation in the preceding six months. We have had a few different versions of that, such as in the preceding six months, the preceding eight months or the preceding ten months. It definitely is not the case that people walked out and walked in.

Directly.

We are looking for more detail from colleagues. I would argue that while it might be a fact that they have left international protection accommodation in the preceding six or eight months, it might very well be the case that the other categories of reasons for requiring homeless accommodation may suit. It could be that they left international protection accommodation, got into a valid lease, and then, when it expired or there was a problem, found themselves homeless. There is nuance within it as well.

As I say, I am exploring this.

To give a broader figure, in the past two and a half years or so, 11,000 people have left international protection accommodation with status. We are working through the percentage figures to make sure they are accurate, but it is still a very small proportion of the overall number who have managed to integrate into communities well, whether through private rented accommodation, HAP or otherwise.

With regard to the supports, all IPAS residents with status are assigned access to a housing support officer to help them to work out their accommodation. They are not exited into homelessness.

If people are being placed and subsequently, within six or eight months, are presenting to the DRHE as homeless, there was obviously an issue with the way they were placed, given they are presenting so quickly.

I think most of the population finds some of the accommodation very precarious at times, or their employment status might be different, or whatever. People's circumstances change.

It is significant that 25% of single people presenting as homeless in the past year cited leaving direct provision. There may be a nuance in that, but my point is that it is significant. I do not have time to explore it. The reason I raise this matter is that there is a cost to providing direct provision and a cost to providing emergency accommodation. We should be looking at those two costs while also acknowledging the rights of people who are fully entitled to housing.

We are trying to look at stability as well. Moving more people into more mainstream, stable accommodation is in our interest because we have people in direct provision, as Mr. Delaney said, who have an entitlement to move out and are trying to move out. It would present better value for us if they were able to move into more stable accommodation. That is an objective for us, absolutely.

I thank the witnesses for attending. Inevitably, there will be some repetition in the questioning. My apologies for that.

On the accommodation that is provided, we have approximately 80,000 at present. That seems to have been the case for some time. Is that a relatively static figure at this point in time?

I am not sure that it is the same 80,000 but the number is roughly the same.

The number is quite static, yes. Please explain. Are we seeing new presentations from Ukraine?

Yes. Through the course of 2025 we would have seen that and Mr. Rowley will give the numbers.

Close to 6,000 people came in from Ukraine in 2025. Obviously some people leave and go home to Ukraine or go to another member state.

If 6,000 Ukrainians came it, did approximately the same number leave? I ask because 80,000 seems to have been the figure for some time now.

To clarify, there are 84,000 people here right now.

Please clarify the following again. How much of the accommodation is directly provided by the State?

Roughly 23,000 people are in State-contracted accommodation. I have the numbers.

Is that 23,000 out of 84,000?

It is 23,000 people.

Yes.

Then 40,000 people are in ARP-supported accommodation, give or take. Mr. Rowley can correct me if I am wrong, by all means.

As part of that, 2,500 people are housed in rapid-build housing developments across eight different sites.

Of the 23,000 people in State accommodation, how many centres are we talking about?

We currently have 560 contracts. That is a good estimation of where we are at. We have reduced that by 50%. We were at over 1,000.

To give us the sense of scale, who or what is the biggest provider of accommodation?

We have one hotel in Dublin that has 1,300 people from Ukraine housed there.

Has that been the case for a number of years?

Yes.

Is that the biggest provider?

That is the biggest. We have had other big ones in places such as Youghal, down in the Deputy's neck of the woods, where we had a significant amount of people there. Obviously we were moving people out as well and relocating.

In terms of the hotel with 1,300 people, what is the annual cost provided to that entity?

That is about €24 million.

One provider has received €24 million for providing accommodation to Ukrainians.

My next issue is international protection. We have seen the trend whereby in 2024 it cost €1.76 billion and in 2025 it cost €1.2 billion. As it is early days the Department does not know the figure for 2026 but what is the provision or budget allocation?

In terms of current expenditure, €1.18 billion has been provided for in 2026 and a further €40 million for capital expenditure.

Is a relatively stable outlay expected this year?

An ever so slight drop in stabilisation, Deputy.

In response to a parliamentary question, the Minister outlined that there were over 300 centres involved in international protection.

That is right.

Ms McPhillips answered my question earlier but again, how much of the accommodation is directly provided by the State versus private provided? Can she clarify the breakdown please?

There is roughly 4,000 people in State-provided accommodation and the remainder-----

It is 29,000.

-----29,000 people are in contracted accommodation.

Who is the biggest provider of accommodation in respect of international protection? What is the name of the entity and what is the scale?

Looking at the list of top providers, Deputy, there are a few around the €25 million mark such as the Holiday Inn, around €25 million; Mosney Holidays €25 million; and Guestford Limited, around €25 million.

Is there any concern about how much one provider can get and would alarm bells ring?

It is important to note that it is not all profit. They provide a service for that.

I understand that.

Let us consider one of them. Mosney has been a very stable provider for more than 25 years. It has provided an awful lot of accommodation and services for a lot of people.

Is it appropriate for one provider to grow in terms of the services they provide?

The test is whether the service is adequate and these are inspected services.

One of the findings from the Comptroller and Auditor General's chapter was that if we could contract and maintain services with companies that are experienced in this space and know how to do the business then we can have trust. We had over 400 inspections last year so there is a robust inspection regime. It is about quality of service provision foremost and then having confidence in the work that is being done. Having people in this business is not a bad thing, Deputy.

Again, in some parliamentary replies, the Minister has indicated that the average processing time for international protection is around 24 months.

Yes.

As I understand it, we have signed up to the EU agreements and in June of this year that is to be reduced significantly to six months. Is that correct?

Yes, and we have been trialling those arrangements since last July with some success. Obviously we have been trialling them with small numbers but we have achieved the targets set out in the new legislation, on that trial basis.

That is on a trial basis and obviously only a percentage of applicants.

Yes.