Gabhaim buíochas as an deis labhartha ar an ábhar agus ar an reachtaíocht seo atá os comhair na Dála anocht agus muid ag plé le Céim an Choiste. Is mór an trua é, mar atá ráite ag mo chomhghleacaithe, go bhfuil seo á bhrú chun tosaigh agus nach bhfuil deis ag an gcoiste dlí agus cirt féin mionscrúdú a dhéanamh ar seo. Mar a dúirt daoine eile an tseachtain seo caite, tá sé soiléir nach mbeidh go leor ama againn dul tríd na moltaí agus leasuithe uile atá curtha chun tosaigh ag mo chomhghleacaí, an Teachta Carthy, agus ag daoine eile sa Fhreasúra mar níl go leor ama á leagan amach fá choinne seo. Léiríonn sé sin an cinneadh contráilte atá déanta ag an Rialtas seo gan cead a thabhairt don choiste dlí agus cirt mionscrúdú a dhéanamh ar an reachtaíocht seo. Díreoidh mé isteach ar an bpríomhleasú atá curtha chun tosaigh agus atáimid ag plé anseo, leasú Uimh. 14. I ndáiríre, is é an rud atá á lorg anseo ná giota beag réasúin agus giota beag céille, agus go mbeidh pleanáil mar is ceart déanta ó thaobh cén áit a mbeidh ionadaithe cosanta idirnáisiúnta á lonnú sa Stát. Tá sé soiléir go dtí seo nach raibh aon phleanáil fá dtaobh de seo mar go raibh na haonaid seo oscailte cibé áit a raibh siad ar fáil, gan aon díriú isteach ar an deacracht a bheadh ann ó thaobh na gceantar sin. B'fhéidir, mar a chuala muid, gurb é an teach ósta deireanach a bhí sa bhaile. B'fhéidir go raibh fadhb ann ó thaobh ganntanas áiteanna sna scoileanna ná ó thaobh dochtúirí agus a leithéid sin. B'fhéidir gur lonnaíodh iad i gcorráiteanna nach raibh na fadhbanna sin, ach an rud atá a fhios againn ná ní raibh a fhios ag an Aire ná an Rialtas dóigh amháin nó dóigh eile mar ní raibh sé sin mar pháirt de na coinníollacha fá choinne na hionaid seo a lonnú mar ní raibh scrúdú ar bith á dhéanamh ar na ceantair sin. An rud atá á rá ag mo chomhghleacaí, an Teachta Carthy, ná sula mbeidh aon ionad úr oscailte ar fud an Stáit go mbeidh measúnú déanta ar an impleacht ar na pobail ina bhfuil siad lonnaithe. Mar pháirt de sin, ba chóir go mbeimis ag amharc ar cé mhéad duine a bheadh san ionad seo agus cad iad na seirbhísí áitiúla atá ar fáil. Dá mbeadh impleachtaí ann do na seirbhísí áitiúla sin, ba chóir go mbeadh plean ann le dul i ngleic leis an phobal agus a chomhairle agus a thuairimí a fháil. Ba chóir labhairt leis an phobal óna thaobh seo. Lena chois sin, ba chóir go mbeidh measúnú ag an Roinn ar an leibhéal de mhíbhuntáiste sa cheantar. Mar atá a fhios againn, níl achan pháirt den tír mar an gcéanna. Tá codanna den tír buailte níos troime. Tá níos mó míbhuntáiste i roinnt ceantar ná mar atá i gceantair eile. Tá cinneadh le déanamh ag an Stát. Ar chóir na hionaid seo a bheith lonnaithe i gceantair a bhfuil fadhbanna míbhuntáiste acu? Is é ár dtuairim nár chóir. Sula mbeadh aon mholadh á chur chun tosaigh ó thaobh ionad mar seo a lonnú i gceantar, ba chóir go mbeadh an measúnú seo foilsithe agus próiseas comhairliúcháin ann leis an phobal. Níor chóir go mbeadh aon ionad nua oscailte sula mbeadh an próiseas comhairliúcháin sin thart agus an tuairim sin foilsithe. Mar a dúirt mé, is leasú réasúnta agus polasaí réasúnta é seo. Muna nglacann an Rialtas leis seo, tá sé ag rá gur cuma leis cad iad na fadhbanna sa cheantar, gur cuma leis muna bhfuil spásanna scoile ann do na páistí a bheadh lonnaithe san ionad agus gur cuma leis faoin bhrú a bheadh á chur ar sheirbhísí dochtúra agus a leithéid. Tá go leor brú ar na seirbhísí sin cheana. Nílim ag cur locht ar dhaoine atá ag cuardach cosaint ón tír seo ach caithfear é sin a chur san áireamh. Má tá tú ag iarraidh amharc ar shampla maith den dóigh ina dhearna an Rialtas brachán de seo, ba chóir amharc ar Dhún na nGall. Is é Dún na nGall an contae is mó atá faoi mhíbhuntáiste sa tír. Is é Dún na nGall an contae is mó sa tír a bhfuil ioncam íseal ag a dhaonra. Is é Dún na nGall an contae is mó a bhfuil cártaí leighis ag daoine. Léiríonn sé sin arís an ráta míbhuntáiste. Is é Dún na nGall an contae nach bhfaighidh tú ciliméadar de dhébhealach, mótarbhealach, iarnród ná líne gháis ann. Níl a leithéid againn sa chontae mar go bhfuil infreastruchtúr an chontae iontach olc. Is é Dún na nGall an contae a dhéanann suas 3% de dhaonra an Stát ach, nuair a tháinig slua mór daoine ón Úcráin agus ó thíortha eile ag cuardach cosaint ón tír seo, rinne an Rialtas cinneadh níos mó daoine a chur isteach i nDún na nGall ná i gcontae ar bith eile. Cén réasún atá leis an pholasaí sin? Cuireadh duine as gach aon dosaen a tháinig ón Úcráin isteach i nDún na nGall. Dá ndéanfaí an rud céanna i mBaile Átha Cliath, bheadh thart ar 110,000 duine as an Úcráin sa chontae. Ní sin an rud atá ag tarlú. Ní hamháin daoine ón Úcráin atá i gceist. Má amharcann muid ar IPAS agus ar na daoine atá ag teacht ag cuardach cosanta, caithfidh siad dul trí phróiseas. Tá a fhios againn nach bhfuil cead fanacht sa tír ag an mhórchuid de dhaoine a théann tríd an phróiseas. Arís, is é an cinneadh a rinne an Rialtas seo ná an líon is mó daoine in aon chontae ar bith taobh amuigh de Bhaile Átha Cliath a chur isteach i nDún na nGall. Ní dhéanann sé sin ciall. Is é sin an rud faoina bhfuil an leasú seo ag caint. Tá sé ag caint faoi phleanáil cheart agus faoi ghuth an phobail agus comhairle an phobail a bheith lárnach in aon pholasaí atá ag an Rialtas ó thaobh ionad nua a lonnú i gceantar ar bith. This amendment is sensible. I commend Deputy Carthy on tabling it and the other amendments he tabled on behalf of Sinn Féin. The only pity is how the Government has dealt with this legislation. I raised the issue of the committee not being able to scrutinise the Bill in the detail it wanted to. This has left us in a position where we will not be able to scrutinise all of the amendments to or all sections of the legislation because the Government is playing to the tune of Europe, having signed up to a pact which was never in the interest of this State, or at least not in its entirety. It is now caught by the timeframes and we have legislation we cannot properly scrutinise. Outside of that, if we forget about the timeframes and the lack of scrutiny, the key issue in this amendment makes perfect sense. It is about ensuring that new accommodation centres will only be established in the State after a community impact assessment has been done. That does not mean there is a block on a centre; it just means an assessment has to be carried out. There are places in the State that are under more pressure than others and places where services are more plentiful than in others. There are also places that have issues, perhaps with the number of people already there seeking international protection or temporary protection, as applies to Ukrainians. The Government seems to be talking about rejecting that sensible proposal. I do not understand why. By rejecting it, the Government is basically saying it rejects the idea that we should consult with communities, listen to them, have any notion of services or the impact a new centre would have on services, the impact of the level of deprivation that exists in an area and the impact a centre may or may not have on that level of deprivation. What the Government is talking about doing makes no sense. When one looks at what has happened heretofore, it is just a complete and utter mess. I come from County Donegal. The facts unfortunately tell us that Donegal is the most deprived county in the Twenty-six Counties. It has the highest rate of unemployment and deprivation, the highest concentration of medical cards and the worst infrastructure in the State. You will not find a kilometre of motorway, dual carriageway, gas pipeline or train line because they do not exist. We are a county under serious pressure and the most deprived county in the State. What did the Government decide to do to deal with an influx of people who came from Ukraine seeking refuge, and need support and refuge, and those applying for international protection? It was not the case that Donegal, even though it was the most deprived county, would take what could be argued is its fair share. One in 12 people who came here from Ukraine under temporary protection ended up in Donegal, the most deprived county in Ireland. If the same statistics were applied to Dublin, there would be 110,000 Ukrainians. To have 8% or one in 12 makes no sense. Even if you look at a more granular level, some of those were concentrated in certain parts of the county. It makes no sense because there was no planning and no recognition that it is a locality that might be under serious pressure or, with the numbers already there, that additional numbers would put pressure on services, places in schools or, indeed, social cohesion. There was no reference to that. The Department, the Minister and the Government were fixated on one thing, namely, which person who wants to become a millionaire overnight is offering a property. That was it. No other questions were asked. Community engagement was a nonsense. They phoned up, told you there was a contract signed for a centre and no matter what, even if you thought it was not the right place, it did not matter. That is how the Government handled where individuals who came from Ukraine are to be located. The same thing happened again with IPAS. Donegal, out of all the counties, has the highest number of people applying for international protection. Of all those who have come here, 7% have gone to Donegal. This is nuts from a planning point of view. From a planning point of view, it is as if the Government was to sit down and just say it has an issue of where to locate people and that it will put most of them in the most deprived county in the country; in the county that does not have rail, does not have motorway and that has so many different challenges. It made no sense from a planning point of view. There are other issues there, which should have been taken into account in relation to any assessment that would be carried out here. An assessment is not a block. An assessment is just about looking at what is on the ground, what is there already, the numbers that are there and the services that are there, whether they already under pressure and if maybe a bit too much has been done there and so on. In my county of Donegal, I live in a region that is linguistically rich in terms of the Irish language. The Gaeltacht is tobar na Gaeilge. We will not have an Irish language in this country if we do not have Gaeltacht communities and places that speak Irish on a daily basis. That does not mean to say that people cannot come in and live in relation to Gaeltacht areas. I am not saying that, but that would be part of an assessment that would be carried out regarding this. If we look at it now, we have social housing development in the Gaeltacht. In every single social development in the Gaeltacht in Donegal, 80% of the houses have to be given to Irish speakers who are fluent in Irish and can reach a certain standard in terms of Irish. That is one of arm of government saying that for those people who have a housing need, and there are people in the Gaeltacht who cannot speak Irish and have a housing need who also need to be accommodated, the policy, which this Government supports, is that there are criteria there. Why are there criteria? It is because there are so many studies telling us that the Gaeltacht is dying and will not survive and one thing we need to do is to protect the Gaeltacht in terms of a hub where Irish is spoken as much as possible on a daily basis. How do we dilute that? It is more people coming into the area who cannot speak the language or are not willing to speak the language. I met with the Polish ambassador earlier on. I said that many of my young son's friends are Polish who have gone to his school. They speak Polish at home. They speak Gaeilge to their friends. English is the third language, which is beautiful to see. That is the same with some of the Ukrainians who are here as well. These are things that should be captured in relation to any assessment. Why under God would we not carry out an assessment? If the Government says that it will not carry out this assessment, then it is reverting to this chaotic situation where it was just left to those speculators and people who wanted to make millions overnight. Some people went in and provided accommodation. Let us be clear, they provided accommodation because people were seeking refuge and people needed to be housed. I take that on 100%. I am not tarring everyone with the same brush. But by God I will tell you there are plenty of people, and we know their names, who were unscrupulous and who were just talking about making millions on the back of the misery that has happened. They did not care in relation to the impact of local communities, or indeed, the places, the conditions and some of the treatment of those people within the centres that they facilitated. I use Donegal as an example of how the worst planning has happened in the last while. I spoke to the previous Minister in relation to this many times. In my community in Donegal and in Gweedore, we had a centre for decades. There were no issues whatsoever. There were no issues for a long time. It kept on going and more and more pressure was put on individuals, services and areas. Even though we were telling the Government that social cohesion and these issues were causing strains, it did not matter. This amendment is sensible. It is the appropriate thing to do. We are dealing with this amendment in relation to centres of international protection. It is not Ukrainians, but I used the argument of Ukrainians to talk about the actual additional pressure that has placed in relation to regions. We could talk about other regions as well, but Donegal is probably the one that is the most acute. At the heart of all of this is the issue of the failure of the Government. That cannot be taken be away from this. Why is there an accommodation crisis in relation to international protection in this State? It is because the Government still has not done its job. It still has not got a handle in relation to processing times. No harm to the Minister, the one thing about him is that he has been on the media talking about this quite a lot, but the fact unfortunately is that processing times have got worse in the past year. From application time to appeal, it is now longer than it was last year. What is it now?

Sentiment score: -0.14

It is the amendment. IPAS accommodation in the numbers that are required would not be required if processing happened. The vast majority of people who have applied based on past experience are not entitled to protection here. Therefore, if processing time was quickened up, then they would not need the accommodation that is here. The Government does not need a European pact to get its act together in relation to this. There was nothing stopping the Government in the past year to fix the processing time. The evidence is now that it is 14 months from initial application and 12 and a half months for appeal. It is 26 and a half months from initial application to the end of an appeal which is longer than it was in 2024. The Government is going backwards in relation to this. This is at the very core of it. It is about fixing a process that has been broken for many years. People who have applied here for international protection are not given the decision that they are entitled to protection in time and then supported and integrated into our community. They have to wait and wait and wait. There are others, which is unfortunately the majority of cases according to the statistics, who were never entitled to protection here anyway, but it has taken two and a half years for a decision to be made in relation to the initial application and the appeal that they may lodge. That goes to the core of what is there. I commend the amendment. It is sensible. The Government should not fear the voice of the public. It should not fear engaging with communities. It should not fear carrying out an assessment in relation to any type of centre that is being located and whether this is the best place or maybe it is within boundaries of countries that there is another place that is more suitable.

Sentiment score: 0.07

I did not blame Ukrainians. The Deputy should withdraw that. I did not blame them. The Deputy should have listened to what I said.

Sentiment score: 0.13

It is about proper planning.

Sentiment score: 0.00

If you are against that, it is fine, but it is about proper planning.

Sentiment score: 0.10

They do not exist.

Sentiment score: 0.00

What you are saying is not true but carry on.

Sentiment score: -0.17

It actually is not.

Sentiment score: 0.00