International Protection Bill 2026: From the Seanad Dail Éireann — 2026-04-15 ============================================================ Matt Carthy (SF), Cavan-Monaghan You wait for a long time for a bus and then a number of them come at once. A number of my amendments are in this grouping and I will restrict myself to them, considering the timeline. I know amendment No. 1 to Seanad amendment No. 65 has been disallowed but I want to make the case very strongly that we need to end the use of for-profit providers of accommodation for those in Tusla care. That is what this amendment sought to do. A judge in Dublin District Court recently hit out at what he quite rightly described as the profiteering by private operators providing unregulated placements for the most vulnerable children. He described it as wrong and shameful, and he was right. Special emergency arrangements are unregulated placements provided by private operators. They are not compliant with national standards, they are not inspected by HIQA and they are typically in rented buildings. We know from recent reports that up to a quarter of staff working in special emergency arrangements last year did not have the documentation required to work with vulnerable children There is clearly a problem with those providers and whether the amendment is accepted or not, I hope it is something the Government will work on. How is it that every time there are vulnerable people who need accommodation involved, the Government figures out a way whereby a few lads will make a lot of money on it? It is just unbelievable. That could be Tusla and the provision of care for children but where it is absolutely most blatant is in the IPAS system. There is continuing and ongoing failure not only to address the profiteering within the IPAS system but, on the Minister's part, to even acknowledge that it is happening. We know that a small number of private operators have made millions of euro from the Government's dysfunctional approach. What is worse is that there is no transparency, including around what actually qualifies some of these providers to provide these services. The amendment to Seanad amendment No. 66 is simply about ensuring there is some transparency. We have called for a full review of every IPAS contract. The reason for this is that everybody who has looked at these issues objectively and every journalist who has carried out an examination of any IPAS contract has found blatant wastage of public money and a number of scandals have emerged. We do not have to ask politicians or journalists. The Comptroller and Auditor General, the Government's own watchdog, has found major weaknesses in IPAS contracting. The Minister tells us that this cannot happen again or will not happen again but there is nothing in policy form to provide a bit of transparency on that. This is an amendment that the Minister could accept that would send out the message that the Government is learning the lesson when it comes to the lack of transparency within the IPAS system. In the context of my amendments to Seanad amendment No. 82, I am surprised because I clearly heard Simon Harris, the Tánaiste and the leader of a main party in government, say that communities have to be engaged. The Government cannot proceed in the way it has up to now, namely where communities are disregarded and the only criterion to determine where an IPAS centre is located is that an operator has a building and is willing to use it for that purpose. Simon has an opportunity tonight to direct his party's Deputies to vote in favour of this amendment in order to make it clear that IPAS centres should only be placed in areas where the resources are in place to accommodate them and that communities have a real say in what happens to them. That would be better for everybody. It would be better for residents of IPAS centres and local communities. Amendment No. 2 to Seanad amendment No. 82 deals with the absolute lack of due diligence and information regarding beneficial owners of those companies that have received IPAS contracts. Any information on scandals - and there have been plenty - has never come from the Department; it has always come from journalists or independent voices, and sometimes from residents who have raised serious questions. The pre-legislative scrutiny report we talked about earlier warned that due diligence processes for international protection accommodation were completely inadequate. It highlighted the incomplete checks in respect of planning permission, ownership, safety compliance and provider suitably. It concluded that weak oversight and inconsistent verification created financial, legal and operational risks within the accommodation system. If there is nothing to hide, there would be no reason to oppose this amendment. I have to make that point strongly. Amendment No. 3 to Seanad amendments No. 82 states, "The Minister shall, by regulation, prescribe a maximum daily amount payable by the State for accommodation provided to applicants". Again, everything is being done to avoid any kind of transparency. On the notion of commercial sensitivity, as if there is anybody in the private sector going around with €1.3 billion to spend on accommodation. There is nobody in competition with you when it comes to this type of contract because nobody else would spend the amount of money the Department of justice is spending. Anybody else, even if it was devolved to local authorities, would get better value in the morning in terms of the money being spent. There has been a lot of talk about price gouging in recent weeks. There has been serious price gouging going on over the past number of years. The average rate paid per bed rose by 68% from 2022 to 2024. This amendment would empower the Minister to take this by the reins, set a maximum daily rate and ensure it is adhered to. Cases have been throughout this debate and unfortunately the Minister has just refused to listen. It has been the narrative of the past couple of weeks. This Government refusing to listen. The protests in recent weeks were about its refusal to listen with regard to the cost of living and the soaring cost of fuel. When it comes to the international protection system, the Minister has been refusing to listen. He just put all his cards into the EU migration pact basket. He has refused to engage in any constructive way with the Opposition on this Bill. We have repeatedly tried to engage with him in the context of increasing increase transparency and accountability, ensuring community engagement and resolving some of the problems he created in the context of mistrust between the public and Government on this issue. We have also sought to ensure that we get value for money and, ultimately, have an international protection system that works for everyone, namely applicants, local communities and the taxpayer. The Minister has refused time and again to engage, and now we are trying to talk about a number of important amendments in a matter of minutes because, once again, the Government has guillotined the debate on the Bill. The Minister has done himself, his Department, this system and the legislation a disservice with the way he has approached matters from start to finish. --- Source: Houses of the Oireachtas. Licensed under CC BY 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). The Official Report is revised after first publication; the fetch timestamp below identifies the version quoted. Record URI: https://data.oireachtas.ie/akn/ie/debateRecord/dail/2026-04-15/debate/main Retrieved: 2026-08-14T04:54:49+00:00 Sitting date: 2026-04-15