17/06/2026
More Questions Than Answers: Why Is Basic Information About Citywest Still Being Withheld?
How can the Minister sign off on responses like this when so many basic questions remain unanswered?
This week we were told, again, that Citywest is subject to oversight and inspection arrangements. However, residents have still not been shown a single published inspection report for the State-owned Citywest Hotel or Convention Centre, despite repeated requests and previous correspondence indicating that HIQA had no remit over these facilities.
If inspections are taking place, where are the reports? Inspection reports are published for other IPAS accommodation, so why not for the Citywest Hotel and Convention Centre, the largest State-owned facility?
If inspections are not taking place, why does the public continue to be told that there is oversight?
The question of HIQA’s remit also remains unresolved. Previous correspondence indicated that HIQA had no role in overseeing these facilities, yet recent responses refer to oversight and inspection arrangements. Clear information is needed on which body is responsible for inspections and how that oversight is being carried out.
The same Parliamentary Questions also revealed that the State relies on a road access agreement for the main access route into the Citywest site. The Minister confirmed that uninterrupted 24-hour access is secured by agreement and that the cost was included in the value-for-money assessment.
Important questions about that arrangement remain unanswered:
• Who owns the road?
• What is its legal status?
• Who receives the maintenance payments?
• How much are those payments?
There are also outstanding financial and risk-related questions:
• What risks were identified before the State spent €148 million purchasing the site?
• How were those risks assessed and addressed as part of the acquisition process?
The Minister’s response also points to the publication of payments over €20,000 as evidence of transparency.
However, that misses the point entirely.
Those payment disclosures do not provide a meaningful breakdown of what taxpayers’ money is actually being spent on in relation to Citywest. They do not explain the specific services being paid for, the contractual arrangements behind those payments, or, in this case, who receives payments connected to the access road agreement that the State itself says is essential to the operation of the site.
Referring residents to a list of large payments is not the same as providing transparency.
In fact, it raises another important question:
Why are these payments not broken down in sufficient detail to allow the public to understand exactly what public funds are being spent on, who is receiving them, and what value the State is receiving in return?
The Citywest acquisition was justified on the basis of value for money and long-term savings. If that is the case, there should be no difficulty in providing clear information on the ongoing costs, agreements and liabilities associated with the site.
Transparency is not achieved by publishing figures alone. Transparency requires the public to be able to understand what those figures actually represent.
For a facility of this scale, these issues are significant. They relate to emergency access, public accountability, financial oversight and the long-term operation of one of the largest accommodation centres in the country.
Residents are regularly told that everything is compliant, inspected and properly managed. However, FOI disclosures, previous correspondence from public bodies and the continued absence of published inspection reports leave important questions unresolved.
This is not about being anti-anyone. It is about transparency, accountability and public confidence.
If the Government has the answers, it should publish them.
We will continue seeking those answers until it does.
