One in six people living in direct provision in August this year had already been granted permission to remain in Ireland, the Comptroller and Auditor General has said.
The report of the C&AG, published yesterday, said 667 direct provision residents had been granted refugee status, subsidiary protection or leave to remain in Ireland.
The report said while firm information was not available to explain why people granted status continued to live in direct provision centres, difficulties in accessing alternative accommodation was likely to be a significant factor.
“It is not clear that using direct provision accommodation for such individuals is in the best interests of the State, the individuals or the intended users of direct provision,” the report said.
The report said the Department of Justice stated there was “no value in forcing individuals or families to leave” the direct provision centres.
The C&AG report also criticised the procurement of direct provision centres.
There are 35 direct provision centres in Ireland, which provide accommodation and food for people who have applied for refugee status.
Just two are self-catering.
Seven years
At the end of 2015, there were 4,696 people accommodated in centres at a cost of €57 million.
The average length of stay was 38 months while 450 people had been living in direct provision for more than seven years.
Seven of the centres are State-owned while the remainder are operated by commercial suppliers and include former hotels, boarding schools and hostels.
Three were purpose built.
The report said the Department of Justice did not use formal competitive procurement processes for suppliers of commercial centres, but sought expressions of interest through advertisements on its website and in newspapers.
It then carried out a site visit to check facilities and negotiated a price with selected providers.
“This increases the risk that the best price and quality of accommodation and services is not obtained,” it said.
The report said there was no evidence provided to show how suppliers were evaluated and, under EU rules, negotiation procedures could only be used in limited circumstances.
“The procurement of direct provision centres does not fall within these limited circumstances,” the report said.
It also said that since 2010, 10 contracts were not renewed for some centres while, in other cases, new contracts were agreed by the department with a different company.
But in a number of these cases at least one director was common to both companies.
The report said the department stated it was not aware “of any contentious issue” on the part of any director or firm.
It also said there were sound logistical, business and humanitarian reasons to ensure the established centres continue to be used.
Responding to procurement concerns, the department said it believed its processes were provided for in EU rules.
It said, in July 2015, demand was such that there was a real danger existing places would not meet requirements.
Complaints
The alternative to the negotiated process was to leave asylum seekers, who by definition were vulnerable and homeless, while the department went through a lengthy procurement process, it said.
As regards inspections, the report found 22 centres had been checked three times, 10 had two inspections and three had only one – even though the department’s target was for all centres to be inspected at least three times.
The report also found there was a very low level of complaints about centres made by residents to the department, with only 38 over four years.
It said an independent appeals officer, to be provided under the complaints procedure, had not yet been appointed.
