Stamullen asylum accommodation
Senator Keogan challenges the Government’s secrecy around the purchase of homes for international protection applicants in Stamullen and defends the community’s reputation.
I want to return to the situation in Stamullen. In response to serious concerns about the quiet purchase of private residential homes for international protection applicants, the Government's position has been that communities must be kept in the dark for the safety and well-being of asylum seekers. That claim deserves scrutiny. It claims that Government secrecy and failure in community engagement is somehow necessary.
It is important to clear this community's name. Stamullen is a generous and decent town, as is every person in it. Its generosity is beyond question. It already hosts homeless families in Stadalt House. It has housed over 300 Ukrainians in Gormanston Park. It is one mile from Mosney, which houses almost 700 international protection applicants. It has provided care accommodations through Nua Healthcare and Redwood. It has a long record of supporting vulnerable people without complaint. That matters. The people of that area matter and their reputation matters. The Government's implication that communities like this are hostile and unreasonable is simply not borne out of facts.
What people object to is not compassion but secrecy. That is also why it is so galling to hear about this and other secretive house purchases across the country described as "in-community" accommodation when the communities in question are being kept entirely in the dark. Now we are told that this secrecy is necessary to protect the privacy, safety and well-being of residents and staff. It must be said plainly that it is not transparency that creates danger; it is the lack of it and it is chaos. It is total absence of engagement, information and planning that fuels fear, rumours and tension. That is what puts everyone at risk; IPAs and locals alike. Let me be clear: criminal attacks on accommodation centres are wrong, indefensible and must be condemned without reservation but pointing to those risks as a justification for secrecy is backwards. The Government is citing the consequences of its secrecy to justify its continued secrecy. Transparency must come before the headlines, not after them. In Deputy McEntee's previous role as Minister for justice, she allowed all this to happen so she is to blame.