Can I start by making a political point? The debate on amendment No. 15 has been an unusual one. The reason it has been unusual is not just because it has gone over for over 2.5 hours but obviously, a very concerted decision was made by TDs from Sinn Féin to speak, in many respects from scripted statements, in respect of this amendment. There were 11 Sinn Féin contributors to this motion. All of them spoke about the same issues in terms of IPAS. I agree there are many issues of concern in respect of IPAS but the standard language that we heard from all of the Sinn Féin contributors was that IPAS was about profiteering, that people were being ripped off, that local communities were being upended and there was no proper consultation. They are perfectly legitimate points of debate that can be made by Deputy Carthy, who is well able to make those statements in respect of this amendment, but the fact that they were repeated on 11 occasions makes me wonder what is the political purpose behind this from Sinn Féin. My own view is that Sinn Féin is very comfortable talking about IPAS because of the significant amounts of money that are being spent on it and because it can also be presented in a way that this is profiteering and in criticism of the Government. The main reason I suspect that Sinn Féin is comfortable speaking about IPAS, however, is they do not want to speak about the other important issues in this Bill. I will highlight this point briefly because I want to try to get on with the rest of the amendments here. I know what Deputy Kelly's argument will be in respect of amendments I have put down and what this Bill is. I know the same in respect of Deputy Gannon. When it comes to the broader issues of asylum applications and reforming the asylum laws, however, I do not know what Sinn Féin's policy in respect of it is. I know the policy of Deputies Coppinger, Kelly and Gannon when it comes to amendments I have put down. I do not know what Sinn Féin's policy is. I think they do not know themselves. Part of the reason there is such focus on IPAS is because it is an area where they are comfortable and do not have to make difficult decisions in respect of it. I will now deal with the substance of the amendment put down by Deputy Carthy. I want to make a couple of introductory points. Everyone in this House has an IPAS centre in their vicinity. The vast majority of them operate very peacefully, very successfully and without any trouble. It is also important to point out what IPAS centres are. They are places that accommodate human beings and it is important to emphasise that. There are obviously challenges when a local community is told that a new IPAS centre is coming into their community but that has happened in respect of all of us. It happens in my constituency, near the area where I live and there are no issues in respect of the IPAS centres in the vicinity. There have been in respect of some. Notwithstanding that, I do acknowledge that it is difficult and can be very challenging for elected representatives and local communities if they are told that there is a new international protection accommodation centre opening in their vicinity. People do not like change. They talk about change. Some people are fearful of change but, in general, my assessment is - notwithstanding that in politics we all use the word "change" - a lot of people do not like change and the unknown. That is not a legitimate reason, nor is it an acceptable reason for accommodation centres not to be put in certain areas and within certain communities. When you look at the substance of what is in the Sinn Féin amendment, it is suggesting that there be a community impact assessment before any IPAS centre is put in a community. That is all the amendment requires. It does not require that there has to be an agreement or certification by a community impact assessment stating that yes, this area is suitable for an IPAS centre. It does not require that there can be a veto in respect of it. All it says at the end of it in subsection (5) is that an IPAS centre cannot be opened until the community impact assessment has been published. Looking at the substance of it, what is the purpose of that? Why are we going to have this detailed process, and, at the end of it, all that is required on behalf of the State is that we publish the impact statement? I have no doubt that if that happened and the State went ahead with the statutory process set out here by Sinn Féin, and, at the end of the process we simply published the community impact assessment and opened the IPAS centre, there would be further objections on the basis that we were not taking on board what was stated by the community in respect of this particular IPAS centre. We all know that we cannot give a veto to individuals in a community when it comes to whether the State is going to open international protection accommodation centre there. In respect of community engagement, there is a community engagement unit within my Department, formerly in Deputy O'Gorman's Department when he was Minister. It does excellent work. It engages with public representatives. I have heard many Deputies here talk positively about the engagement they have had from community engagement. We need to recognise, however, if notification is put out that there is a plan to open an IPAS centre in the community and to ask what are your views in respect of it, we all have a fairly obvious understanding of what is going to be the predominant view of people who go out of their way to respond to it. For those reasons, I am not accepting the amendment. I also want to deal with the issue in terms of the drivers of IPAS and the "profiteering", as Deputy Carthy referred to it, in respect of IPAS. We have a legal obligation to provide accommodation to people who seek international protection. If people say that is wrong, they should say it. I do not think it is wrong. It is an obligation upon us that we should seek to fulfil. If Sinn Féin or Deputy Carthy thinks we should not provide accommodation to people seeking international protection, I am sure he would have put it down in a motion. He has not, so I assume Sinn Féin accepts that there is an obligation on the State to provide accommodation in respect of those seeking international protection. The main driver of the number of accommodation centres we have around the country - at present there are approximately 330 - is the number of people coming into the country claiming international protection. I want to reduce the spend of the State on international protection accommodation services. I have managed to reduce it from last year to this year. The budget last year was €1.2 billion; the budget this year is €1.1 billion. Since 1 May, I have managed to make savings of €80 million. The Deputy may say that is small in the context of a budget for this year of €1.1 billion, but it is heading down. The primary way I am going to be able to reduce the spend on international protection accommodation centres is by trying to speed up the process. If an applicant can be processed in six months, for first instance and appeal, all we are going to have to spend is accommodation costs for the period of six months, or maybe seven or eight months, in processing them at the end of the process. That is the mechanism to reduce the cost. I empathise with Deputy O'Gorman when he held the position that I hold now. As he said, in 2024, 18,500 people came to Ireland claiming international protection. That was an unprecedented number. We had never seen it before and it was a crisis situation. As a result of that crisis situation, Deputy O'Gorman, when he was Minister, found himself having to go around looking for accommodation centres. There were tents on the streets and pressure on him coming from the political establishment to open accommodation centres. I am now trying to ensure I am not in the business of opening more international protection accommodation centres. What I am seeking to do is to tell the officials, the first instance people and the appeal body that we need to process people much faster and get people through the system much faster. That means we can get them out of the system and work with the 33,000 spaces we have. It is also a central part of my policy, and I have put huge energy into it as well, in the same way I have put energy into the other things Deputy O'Gorman mentioned, to ensure we get the State to own more accommodation for international protection accommodation. When I started, we only had 900 places; we now have 4,000. I am committed to trying to get that up to 14,000. On the profiteering Deputy Carthy consistently talks about, as I said to him at the justice committee, in 2024, when Deputy O'Gorman was the Minister entering into contracts, he was in a situation where he desperately needed to get accommodation centres wherever they were available. Obviously, the bargaining power and bargaining strength rested with those who had the accommodation as opposed to the person seeking to rent it. That has changed. It has changed in that for people who wanted to get accommodation centres open, these centres are predominantly not being opened. I am conscious there are more amendments and people want to discuss them. I will not be supporting this amendment. We need to get to the substance of what this Bill is about in terms of asylum applications. The accommodation aspect of it is one thing in terms of reception conditions, but it is only one small part of it. It does not deserve the level of speeches from Sinn Féin, with 11 Sinn Féin Deputies speaking for two and a half hours on one amendment. Let us get on with the other stuff. We can discuss IPAS in the committee room any day with Deputy Carthy. I have been down there before and will be again but let us get on with the other amendments.

Sentiment score: 0.13

I will start by saying that, contrary to what Deputy Cullinane said about there being no transparency in the area of international protection accommodation services, there is in fact a very high degree of transparency. My Department publishes figures detailing the numbers of residents and centres, with a breakdown of numbers of emergency accommodation centres, on a weekly basis. There is full transparency from my Department in regard to providers who receive payments, with details of all payments over €20,000 and the recipients published quarterly online at gov.ie. That is why Members of the House have such detailed information on the amount of money being made by companies that are providing accommodation to the State. There is also transparency in respect of inspection reports. Inspection reports from all IPAS accommodation centres are published either on the Health Information and Quality Authority, HIQA, website or on gov.ie. The only time there is a restriction on publication is when that is based either on residents' security - I am sure people here will appreciate residents' safety or privacy - or on commercially sensitive information, the publication of which would damage the State's ability to achieve good value for money. It is obviously a competitive market and the amount of money the State is paying on a per person, per night basis is information that should not be given out because it will provide a commercial advantage to other persons seeking to secure contracts. In regard to the issue raised by colleagues, I agree that we want to get out of private accommodation but when we have over 30,000 people who need accommodation, the State does not have the accommodation to provide that to them. Because of that, the State obviously has to contract with private contractors-----

Sentiment score: 0.16

-----in order to get accommodation for individuals who are applicants. I am pleased to say that the State has been increasing the amount of accommodation that is State-owned. When I took over responsibility here on 1 May 2025, we only had 900 spaces owned by the State. We now have 4,000. I want to get to a situation where we have 14,000. A large part of that is going to be achieved through the State buying units, which we can then use for the State for the purpose of accommodation. If the State is required because of the high numbers to contract with private contractors to provide accommodation to applicants, of course it is the case that we are going to have to buy it. Nobody is going to set up accommodation or fit out units and then just hand it over to the State. We have to buy it and I am pleased to say that significant savings have been made in the past number of months. Since 1 May, we have saved €80 million on contracts that have been renegotiated. That is a real saving and it is part of the reason the budget for IPAS is going down this year. The amendment is not necessary. There is a lot of transparency in respect of IPAS already. People can go online and get information on who is getting the money for IPAS, provided they are receiving over €20,000.

Sentiment score: 0.19

I thank the Deputy.

Sentiment score: 0.36

They are contracting with companies.

Sentiment score: 0.00

I did not say that.

Sentiment score: 0.00

I thank Deputies Gannon and Kelly for putting down this amendment. It is important to put it in context. What we are discussing here is chapter 2 of the provision that entitles me as Minister to designate a certain centre as a screening centre. That is provided for in section 21 of the legislation. The next section we are dealing with, which is under discussion here, is the obligation to travel to a screening centre. There are provisions set out in this section 22 that place an obligation on a person applying for international protection to travel to a screening centre. Subsection (6), however, sets out a number of individuals whom I exempt from travelling there. Where he or she considers it appropriate, the Minister may exempt an applicant to whom one of the following paragraphs applies. The six paragraphs I have set out there all concern individuals who verifiably come within the categorisation set out in the paragraphs. For instance, it applies to an applicant serving a term of imprisonment, an applicant detained in a children detention school or an applicant in respect of whom a warrant has been issued under the Extradition Act or who is subject to committal under section 29 of that Act or who has consented to surrender or subject to surrender under that Act. It also applies to an applicant in respect of whom a European arrest warrant has been issued or an applicant considered by a registered medical practitioner to be incapable for medical reasons of travelling to a screening centre. Deputies Gannon and Kelly want me to put in a seventh exemption, which would be an applicant who is a presumed or identified victim of trafficking. That is not a specific categorisation of person. Who is going to presume whether or not a person is a victim of trafficking? If it is the case, and I would be interested in hearing what Deputies say in respect of this, that an international protection applicant arrives in and says he or she is a victim of trafficking, does that mean that I, therefore, have to exempt that person from travelling to the screening centre? If that is the case, I am sure Deputies will recognise the fact that the obligation set out under the provisions of sections 21 and 22 could easily be circumvented if all an individual had to say was that he or she was a victim of trafficking. The other term used here is an applicant who is a presumed or identified victim of trafficking. Again, I ask Deputies Gannon and Kelly to tell me who will do that identification. How is this going to work in practical terms whether it is at the centre where somebody is applying or at one of our ports? How will it be presumed or determined that a person is a victim of trafficking? I propose to discuss amendment No. 22 along with amendments Nos. 28, 53, 57, 177 and 179. The Government is firmly committed to protecting and supporting victims of human trafficking, recognising them as a particularly vulnerable cohort. Screening is an important mechanism for recognising potential victims of trafficking, routing them for further assessment and ensuring they can access the supports they need. I also want to clarify that a statement by an individual that he or she has been trafficked does not in itself confer presumed or identified status. A formal assessment is required and must be undertaken by the designated competent authority responsible for formal identification under the existing national referral mechanism, NRM, namely, An Garda Síochána. Careful consideration is needed to ensure operational and legislative alignment of the NRM with the new asylum and migration procedures introduced by this Bill. My officials will continue to examine the matters raised in these amendments with a view to establishing what, if any, ministerial amendments will be necessary. One point deserves further emphasis. Many times individuals may not be aware that they are the victims of trafficking or that they are being trafficked and the screening process is an important mechanism for recognising potential victims of trafficking. I understand the basis on which Deputies Gannon and Kelly put forward this amendment but it is not specific in terms of how is it going to be presumed or who is going to identify the person as a victim of trafficking. I would appreciate if the Deputies would tell me how that would be done. It is also important to point out that there is a benefit in the screening process for the purpose of seeking to identify somebody who is a victim of human trafficking.

Sentiment score: 0.09

I want to respond to Deputy Kelly's point. I listened very carefully to what Deputies Kelly, Gannon and Gibney had to say. I take it seriously and I am fully aware of what political objective they are seeking through these amendments. They are perfectly legitimate, and I respect them. We are talking about an amendment to section 22. It is headlined, "Obligation to travel to screening centre". I have not designated any areas as screening centres yet but if, following enactment, I designate Citywest, which is a well-known example, and I ask someone, who comes into Ireland and claims international protection, to go to the screening centre in Citywest, part of the reason an applicant is asked to go a screening centre is to enable the preliminary and vulnerability assessment to be done. That is part of the process of asking somebody to travel to a screening centre. It is not unreasonable on the part of the State to put an obligation on an individual who has come in claiming international protection to travel to a screening centre. It is not an excessive burden on that person. The amendment that Deputy Kelly wants to make is that if somebody is a presumed or identified victim that the Minister of the day could decide that they do not have to go there, but I do not understand why I would not want them to go there if that is the place where they are going to have their vulnerability and preliminary assessment carried out. That is an integral part of it. I am sorry if I sounded like a barrister. I do not intend to.

Sentiment score: 0.05

However, I do sometimes consider legislation from the point of view of how it will be determined if it is before a court or a judge. The amendment the Deputy wants to insert relates to an applicant who is a presumed or identified victim of trafficking. I am not trying to make a legal point, but I need to know, and a court would need to know with precision how the Minister knows if somebody is a presumed victim of trafficking, or how he knows if they are an identified victim of trafficking. Deputy Gibney may disagree me with on this, but it cannot just be that if the person says they are a victim of trafficking, that is it. In that instance, why are we going through the whole process? When people come in and say they are fleeing persecution, why do we not tell them they are entitled to international protection because they said they are fleeing persecution? It would be completely inconsistent to say that a person is a victim of trafficking simply because they say so. We do not automatically accept that. I do not think any Member is suggesting that if a person arrives and says they are entitled to refugee status, they should automatically get it.

Sentiment score: -0.12

No.

Sentiment score: -0.30