Government to buy Citywest Hotel for €148.2 million
The Government has approved the purchase of the Citywest Hotel and convention centre for €148.2 million, the Justice Minister has said.
Jim O'Callaghan said that it would be 'far cheaper' to own the facility in west Dublin instead of paying private providers for the services and accommodation.
Advertisement
He said it would be used as a screening centre where applications for asylum will be processed.
He said it was in line with the commitment in the programme for government to own 14,000 accommodation units for asylum seekers.
He said there are no 'immediate' plans to expand the number of places at Citywest, which is currently being used as a reception centre for asylum seekers and Ukrainian refugees.
'Over a period of four years, we believe we'd be in the position where we would have got our money back in terms of the investment.
Advertisement
'Over a longer period of time, if you compare what we're spending in the private sector from the amount of money we'll be spending in terms of a state-owned entity, over a period of about 25 years, we'll be looking at a saving of €1.25 billion.'
Locals from Saggart protested outside Leinster House last week over government plans to buy the Citywest facility.
They raised concerns about losing the amenity of the hotel complex and about demand for services.
Minister of State Colm Brophy said that local representatives would be engaged with so that the local community are informed.
Advertisement
He said the decision was being made on a 'value for money' basis and that if it is directly owned by the State, it can save around 50 per cent of the operating costs.
'Very importantly, the purchase of Citywest will not result in any immediate increase in numbers,' he said.
'The plan with Citywest is very simply, to develop the asset and make sure that we have the ability, particularly under the Migration Pact, to have a state-of-the-art processing facility whereby people's applications can be cleared within 13 weeks from when they arrive in the country.'
He added: 'Citywest has actually been working very effectively in terms of having an Ipas centre there, having Ukrainians also present, and having a range of services and facilities which have been working effectively and successfully for many, many years.
Advertisement
'We are not planning on changing those numbers.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Powys County Times
an hour ago
- Powys County Times
Bluetongue rules 'risk devastating farmers' along the border
The Welsh Government have been warned that Bluetongue rules 'risk devastating farmers and livestock markets right the way along the border. MP for Brecon, Radnorshire and Cwm Tawe David Chadwick and Welsh Liberal Democrat leader Jane Dodds have demanded urgent action to support farmers in Powys and across the Welsh marches. New rules set to come into force on July 1 will see sheep unable to cross the Welsh border unless it has had a bluetongue test, even if it has been vaccinated, which can cost as much as £70 per animal. The Welsh Government has relaxed rules on cattle to allow vaccinated animals to enter, however sheep will not be subject to the change despite there being over 8 million sheep being farmed in Wales in 2024. Much of the trade taking place across the England-Wales border and local farmer James Gittins warned that "in the worst-case scenario, we are going to see the numbers of lambs produced in Wales drop by 10 to 20 per cent, from which it may never recover." Livestock markets such as Builth, Prestige and Welshpool are also set to be massively hit by the rules. In Westminster on Thursday, Mr Chadwick questioned the UK Government EFRA Minister about how it plans to prevent a de facto veterinary hard border between England and Wales and protect cross-border farms from economic harm. Chadwick warned that the cost of testing 'is a devastating burden our local farmers cannot afford to take on at a time they are already under such significant financial pressure'. While acknowledging the seriousness of the issue, the Minister declined to commit to additional support, citing devolved powers. 'These sudden and costly changes risk devastating farmers and livestock markets right the way along the border,' said Mr Chadwick. 'Cross-border movement is essential to how agriculture works in this region, it's not optional. If nothing changes, this will do serious damage to rural livelihoods and the local economy. 'We need urgent coordination between the Welsh and UK Governments to ease the burden and protect our farms.' In the Senedd, Jane Dodds raised the impact the policy is having on farmers' mental health, and urged the Welsh Government to work more closely together with a focus on vaccination over an unworkable testing and licensing scheme. Both representatives are calling for a joined-up, four-nation response to bluetongue, including surge funding for testing and vaccination. 'I've spoken with farmers, vets, and local markets and the message is clear, the current plan is unworkable,' said Ms Dodds. 'Testing is costly, slow, and does nothing to support already stressed farm communities. 'Vaccination must be at the heart of our response. We need a united approach between both Cardiff and London that puts farmers' wellbeing and practical realities first.'
The Independent
2 hours ago
- The Independent
Keir Starmer accidentally admits his first year has been a failure
It is the sort of thing a backbencher who is trying to be loyal would say. Which is damning, and particularly so from the prime minister himself, because a core part of his job is communicating the government's 'story'. He was asked in Canada on Wednesday what his biggest mistake had been in his first year in government. 'We haven't always told our story as well as we should,' he said. Most politicians would have bristled at the obvious trap laid by Beth Rigby of Sky News, but Keir Starmer is a surprisingly low-ego politician. No other British prime minister would have bent down to pick up the trade deal papers that Donald Trump dropped. Most other prime ministers would have ignored Rigby's invitation to criticise themselves, especially as the second half of a two-part question, but Starmer came back to it willingly after answering the first part (what are you most proud of? 'Three million extra appointments in the NHS'). He is not self-important, which I admire about him, but he is ruthless and confident. Confident enough not to notice or care that the photographers are recording him scrabbling at the president's feet, and confident enough to give a serious answer to an obviously silly question. Unfortunately for him, it was a bad answer. Communication is not an optional add-on to democratic politics; it is the essence of it. Poor communication is usually an excuse not an explanation. It is the code to be used when a government becomes unpopular but people do not want to imply that the leader is the problem. Poor communications and bad advisers get the blame. It was ever thus: when parliament criticised Charles I's advisers; when Margaret Thatcher was told to get rid of Alan Walters, her economic adviser. Charles I was urged to get his message across better to MPs by denouncing popery; Thatcher was urged to sell the poll tax better by calling it the community charge. In both cases, it wasn't the advisers or the communications that were the problem. So it is with Starmer. MPs grumble about Morgan McSweeney, the prime minister's chief of staff. They blame him for the 'right-wing' policies that they don't like. They have all read Get In, the book about how Labour won the election by Patrick Maguire and Gabriel Pogrund, which portrays McSweeney as the mastermind and strategic genius behind a campaign for which Starmer is often the passive figurehead. This is often developed, by MPs who 'didn't come into politics to cut support for the disabled', into a fairytale in which Starmer, a proper socialist who shares Ed Miliband's politics (like them), has been taken prisoner by his Blairite chief of staff. If that is an attempt to avoid direct criticism of their leader, it fails, because it makes him look weak and dishonest. But it is also wrong. In the end, the leader always takes responsibility for decisions. Nor is Starmer simply McSweeney's puppet. A telling report in the Financial Times on Wednesday revealed that the plan to treat Nigel Farage even more publicly as the real leader of the opposition came from Starmer himself, and not McSweeney: it was the prime minister's idea to travel to St Helens to deliver a speech as a direct response to Farage's pitch for Labour votes. Farage is the main threat to Labour at the next election, but it may be that McSweeney has doubts about the prime minister himself saying so in public. The 'poor communications' line is just as bad – and it is a defence that Starmer deploys himself. What does he mean when he says 'we' could have 'explained our decisions in the way that might in retrospect have been better'? Could he have said to pensioners on modest incomes, 'We're going to take away your winter fuel payment, but don't worry, next year we will pretend that the economy is getting better and give it back to you'? The reason his government's decisions have not been explained better is that they were bad decisions. In retrospect, as he put it, he should have stopped Rachel Reeves cutting the winter fuel payment. Looking back, he shouldn't have promised to ' smash the gangs ' with no idea how to do it. Looking further back, he should have put someone with his full authority in charge of preparing for government. These are not examples of failing to tell the government's story 'as well as we should': they reveal a government with no story to tell, or even, quite often, with the wrong story to tell. Starmer has shown that he can learn, and he seems to have no fear of U-turning from the wrong policy to the right one. So maybe he can recover from the false start of his first year – but it will be achieved by making better decisions, not by 'telling a better story'.
The Independent
2 hours ago
- The Independent
Kemi Badenoch calls for BBC Kneecap ban
Conservative Party leader Kemi Badenoch has publicly stated the BBC should not broadcast Irish rap group Kneecap's Glastonbury performance. Badenoch's intervention follows the charging of Kneecap member Liam Og O hAnnaidh under the Terrorism Act for allegedly displaying a Hezbollah flag and chanting pro-Hamas and Hezbollah slogans at a November gig. O hAnnaidh was released on unconditional bail until his next hearing on August 20, with his legal team arguing he is within his rights to voice opinions on Israel and Palestine. Kneecap has denied the charge, calling it 'political policing' and a distraction from the situation in Gaza, and previously won a discrimination case against the UK Government after Badenoch tried to block their funding. The BBC, as Glastonbury's broadcast partner, stated that artists are booked by festival organisers and their programming will adhere to editorial guidelines, with output decisions made closer to the event.
