Thurles Information

The Government is facing renewed scrutiny over the Department of Social Protection’s reliance on external technology providers after figures revealed that €102.8 million was paid to Deloitte between 2020 and 2025.

The expenditure covered consultancy and specialist IT services, including digital-product development, production support and work connected with MyGovID. Spending reached its highest annual level in 2024, when payments to the professional-services firm totalled €22.2 million.

Social Democrats social protection spokesperson Mr Eoin Hayes described the scale of the expenditure as deeply concerning and urged the Government to strengthen the public sector’s ability to design, operate and maintain its own digital systems.
He argued that essential technical expertise should be developed within the State rather than repeatedly purchased from private companies. Mr Hayes has called for a comprehensive audit of the external firms engaged by the department to establish whether taxpayers are receiving adequate value.
He also warned that unnecessary spending on contractors reduces the funding available to support people experiencing persistent poverty, including lone parents, disabled people and older people living alone.

The Department of Social Protection defended its use of external specialists, pointing to the scale and complexity of the systems required to administer more than €27 billion in social-protection services during 2024.

A departmental spokesperson said welfare services depend heavily on secure and reliable technology, with payments being processed every week. The department described ICT expenditure as an investment in maintaining an efficient social-protection system and said projects are subject to central oversight and ongoing value-for-money monitoring. It added that Deloitte personnel work alongside the department’s internal technology teams and that some specialist services are available only through external IT providers.
The department maintains that its consultancy expenditure has delivered value for money.

The recent controversy around the Global Sumud Flotilla (Sumud – Arabic for ‘steadfastness’ or ‘resilience’), deserves more closer scrutiny than it has received. It is entirely possible to care deeply about civilians in Gaza, to support genuine humanitarian relief, and still ask serious questions about the people, tactics, and political movements operating under that so called humanitarian banner.

Dr Margaret Connolly, sister of the Irish President Mrs Catherine Connolly, was among the Irish citizens involved in the flotilla mission. That fact alone does not mean she endorsed every participant, knew every individual’s background, or supported violence of any kind. It would be unfair and irresponsible to make that leap without evidence.

However, it is fair to ask why a mission, presented primarily as humanitarian, appears to have attracted such politically charged company.
Spanish reporting has identified José Javier Osés, a man previously convicted in France for membership of terrorist group ETA,(Euskadi Ta Askatasuna) being present among those detained following the disorder at Bilbao airport.

Other reports have also referred to former ETA-linked figures being associated with the wider flotilla movement. That should concern anyone who believes public causes must be judged not only by their stated intentions, but also by their associations and methods.

Ireland has already committed real substantial aid to Palestinians, including Gaza – €144 million since January 2023.

The scenes at Bilbao airport only deepen those concerns. Supporters of the flotilla will argue that activists were mistreated and that police conduct should be investigated. Others will point to the confrontational nature of the welcome, the charged atmosphere, and the apparent appetite for spectacle. Both issues can be true at once: police conduct can be questioned, and so can the behaviour and judgement of activists who place themselves at the centre of highly staged political confrontations.

This is the core issue. Humanitarian language carries moral weight. It should not be used as a shield against scrutiny. When activists join missions that mix aid, propaganda, confrontation, celebrity politics, and radical associations, the public is entitled to ask whether the objective is relief for civilians or political self-recognition.

Ireland should as a nation be capable of supporting genuine humanitarian assistance for Gaza if needed, while also being honest about the political baggage attached to some of those claiming to act in its name. Compassion should not require naivety. Nor should criticism of Israel mean ignoring the questionable alliances and tactics of activist movements.

The question is not whether civilians in Gaza deserve help. The question is whether this flotilla was the best and most responsible way to provide it and whether those who joined it exercised sound judgement about the company they kept.