We are obviously not accepting this amendment. I do not know if Sinn Féin fell asleep in 2024 but its members have gone assiduously out of their way - I know they would not do so deliberately - not to mention the new rate card introduced in May 2025 or acknowledge that this rate card is delivering €83 million in savings to the State. It has been applied across 147 centres and the process of putting in place these contracts has been overhauled. The State's objective is always to ensure we have a robust system that delivers value for money when we are signing these new contracts, ensures centres are inspected and properly regulated, and has transparency built in with payments over €20,000 fully recorded. The value of a rate card system is that it allows the best deal to be struck. That system is now working well and it will continue to work well.
Sentiment score: 0.27
The Deputy mentioned 2023 to 2024 three times. He never said anything about 2025.
Sentiment score: 0.00
The purpose of having a rate card and delivering those savings, which are in the millions of euro, while having a transparent process under which payments of over €20,000 are recorded is to have a system where people can see what has been paid and we have an ability to negotiate and deliver the best value for money for the taxpayer. When every contract comes up, and there are 147 of them so far since the summer of last year, it goes through a process that appraises it and looks to deliver the best value for money and, obviously, all the quality assurance standards we want. That is the best way of doing it. I do not agree with the Deputy's analysis of how it should be done, so I cannot accept the amendment.
Sentiment score: 0.44
I have given my answer to the Deputy.
Sentiment score: 0.00
I will rely on a rate card that is delivering millions in savings to us in this area. It is delivering value for money, which we wanted to see, and I believe it is working for us. I will stand over the fact that there is transparency in the payments that are being made. We will not agree, I am sure, but that is the case.
Sentiment score: 0.02
I refer Members to the conversation we had last week. It is the Government’s intention to ensure the system is fully resourced to deal with the outcomes of this legislation.
Sentiment score: 0.19
I propose to take amendments Nos. 21, 27, 29, 79 and 83 together and I will reply to each one. I just want to say, though, before I begin that reply to each individual one, that I am a true believer in democracy. It is very important that we respect democracy and democratic outcomes. We have a Government, and this Government is committed to reform. That is what this legislation is about. I believe it is important to acknowledge that we are trying to reform a system that needs reform. At the end of that process there will still be international protection. There will still be a process that allows for people to come to our country.
Sentiment score: 0.18
There will be a process. We have a refugee process as well and we have people who come here to work. All of them remain. It is very wrong to portray what is being done here in a particular way when what is actually being done is a process of reform. Amendment No. 21 proposes to delete section 22(5). That subsection provides that a member of An Garda Síochána, an immigration officer or an officer of the Minister may direct an applicant who holds a valid registration certificate under section 9(4)(a) of the Immigration Act 2004, or a minor exempt from registering under that section, to travel to a screening centre where it is in the interests of the public policy or national security. This is a necessary provision for ensuring that all international protection applicants undergo screening in those circumstances. This provision only applies to international protection applicants and not to persons registered under the Immigration Act. Therefore, I do not intend to accept this amendment. Amendment No. 27 seeks to remove the possibility that person given a direction under section 22(5) may be arrested and detained. I point out that these cases involve persons who may constitute a threat to public order, national security or both. It is important we have the possibility to identify such persons from the outset. It may be necessary to be able to arrest and detain such persons as a last resort for the purposes of verifying their identity. This is part of a coherent and well-functioning international protection system and, as such, I am unable to accept amendment No. 27. It appears that the purpose of amendment No. 29 is to remove the possibility that a person arrested under section 24(2) could be detained in a screening centre. For operational purposes it may be necessary for such a person to be detained in the screening centre while their identity is being verified. I remind Deputies the allowing of such detention is intended to be short term in nature until the applicant's identity is verified and in any event may not exceed two days. For that reason, I do not propose to accept amendment No. 29. I do not propose to accept amendment No. 79 because the entries into the screening form are standard across all member states. This is so relevant authorities can share the information regarding persons who have made previous international protection applications in the European Union before arriving in the State. The matters to be included in the screening form under section 31 are intended to align with the screening form provided in article 17 of the screening regulation. While it is not my intention to deviate significantly from the contents of the form as provided for in that article, the Deputy will note that there is a regulation-making power that enables the Minister to prescribe additional categories of information. I will keep the categories of information under review in light of the operational experience. The purpose of amendment No. 83 appears to be to provide that an additional applicant can be considered in the accelerated examination procedure if the preliminary health assessment and preliminary vulnerability assessment are not carried out. The effect of the amendment would be that any applicant could effectively prevent their application from being considered in the accelerated examination procedure simply by refusing to consent to their preliminary health assessment. It is likely that this could result in some applicants who would have been subject to the accelerated examination procedure refusing to undergo assessment. This would negate the benefits of having both a preliminary health assessment and the accelerated examination procedure in the first place. As such, I do not propose to accept amendment No. 83.
Sentiment score: -0.13