Matt Carthy
Cavan-Monaghan · Sinn Féin · Ireland
“I move amendment No. 1: To insert after "on 2nd July, 2026": "and: further calls on the Government to provide that the Accommodation Recognition Payment (ARP) scheme shall apply only to: — existing recipients with respect to the beneficiaries of temporary protection currently benefitting from the scheme where those beneficiaries of tempor…”
“10 reads, "In page 5, line 31, after “section 2” to insert “or section 3”." Section 3 criminalises recording, sharing or publishing an intimate image without consent where it seriously interferes with a person's privacy or causes alarm, distress or harm to them.”
“In terms of the legislation, as well as the breadth of the issues covered in the Bill, the other problem is the number of amendments the Minister has introduced on every Stage on new and unrelated matters that just have not been discussed in this House at all and will not get discussed here because of guillotines being applied and the Min…”
“It is not an additional punishment to be included on the register. As has been said, this is just about having a mechanism whereby the constitutional diktat that justice should be done in public is actually made available. This is not an additional punishment. It is actually a protection for others.”
“We must bear in mind that the vast majority of domestic violence offences and abuses never make their way to court. Most of them never result in a complaint. When complaints are made, most of them never see a file being sent to the DPP. Even when that happens, most of them never actually make it to court.”
“She made the point that when a woman, in the majority cases we are talking about women, goes to a Garda station to make a complaint about domestic violence you can virtually bet your life that it is not the first instance of domestic violence that she has encountered.”
The complete record
Every one of 1,467 lines we hold for Matt Carthy, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 30.
“I am pleased that will now change as a result of the Minister accepting this amendment. I support the Seanad amendment. It is set out in a clear way how this will apply. It is a major step forward for fairness and accountability in our courts and for victims who have been traumatised by the existing system, so I thank the Minister.”
“None of that could possibly have had any implication in whether a person was engaged in coercively controlling their partner behind closed doors. I do not know. In fairness, the sentence in that case was reflective of the seriousness of the crime, but at the same time, it was difficult for the victim to hear that being read out. It transpired in that case - it was one of the cases I mentioned, as I contacted the employer involved - that the employer had no idea what the charge being dealt with was and the employer was subsequently embarrassed about it. In that instance, if people know that they are providing a reference they have to give under oath or by affidavit and that they could be cross-examined, we can be damn sure that employers would make sure they knew what they were giving a reference for beforehand.”
“My impetus for tabling this amendment came from dealing with people who had been in a court that was dealing with the unlawful killing of their loved one and, at the end of the case, someone said this individual was a great person. The sense those families had was that the character references played a role in downplaying the seriousness of the offence or the impact on the victim because they focused on the offender's reputation. I met one victim in respect of whom a sentence for coercive control had been secured. The conviction was welcome and difficult, as can be imagined, and then an employer talked about how great the convicted person was at showing up to work on time, always left the place tidy and got on well with all their colleagues.”
“I have also heard about a case - this was particularly concerning - where people supplied character references but did not realise that they were for a court case, or knew it was for a court case but did not know what crimes applied. Then there were questions around the veracity because they were written documents. An important and welcome change was introduced in respect of sexual offences cases. In such cases, in recent years, references have had to be given on oath or under affidavit and, crucially, can be cross-examined in court. It made sense that this be the case for all indictable offences. It made little sense to have a higher standard in respect of character references in some cases than in others, particularly when they can relate to very serious crimes, including unlawful killings. I was clear.”
“Some judges have argued that they do not carry huge weight in determining the outcome of sentencing. That is debatable and certainly not an excuse for allowing what was a flawed system to continue. I have spoken to many people who were devastated as character references came out. Particularly where guilty pleas apply, as someone pleads guilty the whole details of the case might not be divulged to the court and might not be made public. Then a character reference is read out at a sentencing hearing in public talking about how great the individual might have been. There have been serious questions about the accuracy of some of the character references given in public.”
“I thank the Minister for accepting my amendment on character references in trials. Unfortunately, we did not get to the amendment on Committee Stage. Reading back on the report, if I had been eating cornflakes, I would have nearly choked on them, such was my surprise that the Minister had accepted my amendment. I thank him for and commend him on doing so because it is a significant change to the law. It is a simple change, but will be helpful to victims and their families in their pursuit of justice. The use of character references on sentencing in Irish courts has long been controversial and, in some cases, it has compounded the trauma of victims and their families. There has been an ongoing debate about the weight given to character references.”
“I just want to put that on the record because, notwithstanding that, there are some extremely important legislative changes in this Bill that I do support. Had the Minister taken a different approach, I think he would have had unanimous support in these Houses on every Stage, which should have been the way of doing things when we are dealing with issues that, in many cases, have been long campaigned for. I am thinking of the issue of the retrospective disregarding of convictions for gay men, and other extremely important issues that have come about as a result of decades of campaigning. They should not have been put into a Bill that has become divisive as a result of the political decisions made concerning how this legislation would be pushed through the House.”
“The questions put to her on that day at the justice committee still have not been answered. We still do not know the rationale for the changes, the way they were brought about and the urgency with which they were brought about. I just do not think it is appropriate that such new matters were brought into the Bill on every Stage, including during the Stages in the committee and in the Dáil. I hope the Minister will reflect on all of that over the summer. It is for these reasons that I have opposed the Bill at every stage. It was primarily because of the approach taken to counselling notes, but also the approach taken to the Bill as a whole. This is the reason why I will be voting against the final passage of the legislation.”
“It also necessitated the Minister for Defence appearing before the justice committee. I do not know how the said Minister deals with things in her own sectoral committee, but I have never seen a more ill-prepared Minister in the justice committee, or a Minister unable to answer what should have been basic questions that were put to her.”
“In terms of the legislation, as well as the breadth of the issues covered in the Bill, the other problem is the number of amendments the Minister has introduced on every Stage on new and unrelated matters that just have not been discussed in this House at all and will not get discussed here because of guillotines being applied and the Minister refusing to allow the justice committee to deal with this legislation in an appropriate way. I know the Minister is eager and anxious to get laws passed, and, in one way, that is commendable. I do, however, have a fundamental problem with the whole notion of scrutiny having been thrown out. I must say that the additions in respect of aid to the civil power remain the most inexplicable, because this is a defence matter. It necessitated a change to the Title of the Bill, never mind anything else.”
“It is appropriate that we commend all those victims and survivors who engaged with us throughout the consideration of this Bill and who laid out in stark terms the impact of this practice. We will see in practice how curtailed it becomes as a result, but it has to be said that the manner in which this issue has been dealt with has compounded some of the trauma outlined. I know that many people had hoped that the Minister would, even at a later stage, introduce a full ban on the disclosure of counselling notes. There will be a huge amount of scrutiny. I hope that the Minister is right that, in reality, when it comes to the practice of the courts, we will actually see a fundamental change in their approach in dealing with this matter.”
“When this legislation is made law, major aspects of it will not have been dealt with during pre-legislative scrutiny and were only touched upon on Committee and Report Stages. A great deal of the debate on this Bill was taken up by the issue of counselling notes. It has been proven by that debate that this issue should have been a stand-alone matter. It rightly consumed most of the discussion on Committee and Report Stages. Yet we still did not have enough time to tease out amendments to improve what the Minister has in this Bill, including the more serious concern that these provisions will allow the practice of the defence of an alleged offender in sexual violence trials to continue to be able to seek the disclosure of counselling notes under the provision of the interests of justice.”
“It is quite phenomenal that we are dealing with such a number of amendments from the Seanad. I reiterate a point I have made on every Stage of this Bill. Before the Minister gets overly sensitive, I absolutely accept that miscellaneous Bills have their place, particularly when we are dealing with minor technical matters or matters that are in some way related. There are important provisions in this legislation that I welcome. The extensive range of unrelated issues dealt with, without what I consider to be appropriate levels of scrutiny ,has done a huge disservice to many of the good aspects being dealt with in the legislation. The truth of the matter is that there are good provisions in this Bill that just did not get the level of scrutiny warranted.”
“Certainly, when the Bill is finally passed, it will be a good day for Irish democracy and, hopefully, another small step in terms of the measures being taken to protect those families who have lost loved ones through violent deaths and the ongoing work being done to address the scourge of domestic, gender-based and sexual violence, especially against women.”
“The families still found within themselves the strength and courage to invest their time in changing the law, not necessarily for their own benefit but for the benefit of others who might be in that position. We are so fortunate as a country that we produce people like this. We are fortunate that we have a democratic system in which families in this situation can have access to their elected representatives and, ultimately, the Minister. We can then see legislative change being brought forward. It takes longer than we would like but it happens much quicker than it would in other jurisdictions where the same accessibility to the democratic process is not there. We have many what I consider to be bad days in this House, but, for all of the reasons I have outlined reasons, today is a good day.”
“We have missed a trick in terms of ensuring that other parties would be able to have their voices heard in these instances. Many people were astounded to discover that somebody, in most instances it will be a man, who has killed the mother of his children automatically retains guardianship rights. It is quite mind-boggling that this has been the case for so long. The truth of the matter is that it would have remained the case were it not for David French and the campaign he undertook when dealing with what must be unbelievable and unimaginable grief and trauma having lost a loved one in such violent circumstances. The work he has done is a huge credit to him. We have also just seen this with the Poole family and so many other families. In both instances, children were left behind.”
“I had hoped that the Minister would have accepted some of our amendments, particularly in respect of the application by Tusla to the court for every case following a conviction. A conviction for the murder or manslaughter of a co-guardian should be sufficient grounds for a review, ensuring consistency and prioritising the child's welfare. I had also tabled an amendment to ensure the family of the guardian who has been killed was made a notice party in these proceedings. They should have a clear right, considering their legitimate interest and the child's welfare. This role should be recognised, respected and reflected in the process. I hope I am proved wrong, but I reiterate that I have concerns regarding the discretion being given to Tusla in dealing with convictions that will happen before the legislation is commenced.”
“The insights David French gave to the justice committee were invaluable, in particular during the pre-legislative scrutiny process on this legislation and the impact it would have had on his family and the welfare of his nephews if it had been in place previously. David shone a light on the reality of what many families face following a killing where children are involved. I know this has been a long and difficult campaign for him and his family. During previous debates on the Bill, the Minister said that such cases are, fortunately, not too common. The truth is, as we have seen with recent violent deaths of women, that they might not be too common but, on the other hand, there are too many of them. The number of women killed in violent circumstances this year has to be a matter of huge concern for these Houses.”
“There are a number of amendments coming from the Seanad and I do not oppose any of them. I seek your indulgence, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, to make a number of points at this stage rather than going back and forth. As I outlined on different Stages of the Bill, we fully support the legislation to restrict guardianship rights in a situation where a person has murdered a child's other guardian. I again commend David French, the brother of Valerie, who this law will be named after, on everything he has done to ensure that this legislation is enacted to protect the best interests of children. The interests of children have been paramount to David and his family. This is particularly important when one parent has been killed by another parent.”
“The amendment simply seeks to place victim safety at the heart of the court's decision-making, requiring consideration of any risk of intimidation or further harm, as well as the welfare of the affected children and dependants to be at the heart of it. It is certainly at the heart of the rationale for this legislation. I just want to suggest that it be included.”
“I move amendment No. 16: In page 6, between lines 9 and 10, to insert the following: “(14) In deciding whether to make an order under subsection (2), the court shall have regard to— (a) the safety and wellbeing of the victim, including any risk of intimidation, retaliation or further harm, and (b) the safety and welfare of any children or dependents connected to the victim or the convicted person.”.”. Again, this is just to insert subsection (14) in page 6. It provides that in deciding whether to make an order under subsection (2), the court shall have regard to the safety and well-being of the victim, including any risk of intimidation, retaliation or further harm, as well as the safety and welfare of any children or dependants connected to the victim or the convicted person.”
“It is also to ensure that the register does not have the effect of giving people who may be at risk a false sense of safety. It is safe to assume that most people who are consulting this register will have a concern for their well-being or somebody else's. Regardless of whether this amendment becomes standard practice or not, I hope it will be a standard practice that when the register is consulted, clear guidance toward support services will be provided. We have a lot of organisations that do incredible work with victims of domestic violence. They are overwhelmed and need more resources, but they want to help people who need help. In some instances, the number of people who do not know the level of support available to them is phenomenal.”
“I move amendment No. 15: In page 6, between lines 9 and 10, to insert the following: “(14) The Courts Service shall ensure that, when the Register is made available to the public— (a) a statement is included to the effect that the absence of a person’s name from the Register does not indicate that such person does not pose a risk or has not previously engaged in domestic violence or abuse, and (b) information is provided directing users to appropriate support services, including national and local domestic violence support services.”.”. This is to ensure that the register is accompanied by clear safeguards to ensure, as has been discussed by a number of Members from across the House, that those who consult the register do not consider absence from the register as meaning an absence of risk.”
“I move amendment No. 9: In page 5, between lines 21 and 22, to insert the following: “(ai) section 2, where the offence is committed against a spouse, civil partner, cohabitant or person in an intimate relationship;”.”
“I move amendment No. 8: In page 5, between lines 6 and 7, to insert the following: “(9A) Notwithstanding subsection (9), the court may, in making an order under subsection (2), specify that a longer period shall apply before an application for removal may be made, having regard to— (a) the nature and seriousness of the offence, and (b) the need to protect the safety and wellbeing of the victim and, where relevant, any children or dependents.”.”
“I have very little sympathy for them, to be quite frank, and I hope that any court in which such an application comes before it will have very little sympathy but the point is around when that avenue should become available. Three years after such a conviction is far too short. From speaking to campaigners on this issue, this is a position that is held. That is why I would make the argument strongly that five years - arguably too short in itself - is much more reasonable.”
“In respect of the point around rehabilitation, the aforementioned young fella or young woman who had a public order offence and happened to end up in a court when their local journalist was in attendance are statistically much more likely to have rehabilitated themselves than someone who has committed a sexual offence but they are in the local paper. It is published. They can do nothing about it. That is just the outworkings of justice happening publicly. I understand the Minister's rationale for saying that there has to be a point of appeal or a legal mechanism by which somebody can ask for their name to be withdrawn.”
“I will make a couple of ripostes. In terms of the bar being set high and the logic behind using that phrase, I am sure the Minister will accept, and he probably knows this better than anybody in the Chamber, that it is an indisputable fact that the vast majority of cases of abuse are never reported. That has been well-documented. The vast majority of reported abuses never result in court cases at all. The majority that result in court cases do not subsequently result in a conviction for one of the 17 offences the Minister has outlined. When I say that the bar is high, it is not to suggest that it is incredibly narrow but it is a high bar. I hope the Minister will take that on board.”
“Amendment No. 8 is a secondary position that seeks to allow a longer period for removal in some instances. That should be considered with regard to offences at the most serious end of the spectrum, obviously including murder, manslaughter and rape. People would be surprised to learn - after all the effort that has gone into this and the campaigning by the Poole family with the Minister and his Department - that we would have a situation where there is a register in place, narrow as it is, but after three years, somebody on the register can apply to be taken off it. In my mind, that is far too short. Five years is much more reasonable. Above all, my appeal to the Minister is to accept amendment No. 5.”
“It is not an additional punishment to be included on the register. As has been said, this is just about having a mechanism whereby the constitutional diktat that justice should be done in public is actually made available. This is not an additional punishment. It is actually a protection for others. If we agree with that premise, which I think was the central point of the Deputy opposite, Paul McAuliffe, regarding the rationale for the approach that has been taken, then there is no rationale for allowing people to have themselves removed after only three years following a prosecution. This is the amendment, above all, that I appeal to the Minister to accept because the logic stands. There is an argument that five years is too short, but I table it with regard to the legislation and understanding that this is just an application.”
“When you consider that, to be on the register, the crimes are way beyond what any reasonable person would want any of their loved ones to be exposed to in a relationship, certainly without them knowing. The key part of this is that being included on the domestic violence register is not actually an additional punishment. We talked about early convictions. If somebody has been convicted of a public order offence at the age of 19, 20, 21 or whatever, depending on the profile of the situation, if he or she happened to be in a local District or Circuit Court and the local newspaper was in place, everybody can find that information out very quickly, because it is going to be googlable forever. There is a right to be forgotten and all of that, but generally speaking, that will be common knowledge forever.”
“8 is the second option for the Minister if he is of a mind to reject amendments Nos. 5, 6 and 7. Bearing in mind that, as a result of the Government's position on the previous amendments, the bar to be included on this register is incredibly high under the Bill as it stands, somebody who is on the register that we are discussing has committed offences of a very serious nature. For all of the reasons I outlined earlier, I believe that the vast majority of abusers will never see their names published on this register. Therefore, to have such a high bar and then to allow a three-year mechanism whereby a person who has reached that bar and ended up on the register can apply to have his or her name removed from it is far too short.”
“I move amendment No. 5: In page 4, line 33, to delete “3 years” and substitute “5 years”. All of these amendments are linked and are the critical amendments that we will be discussing this evening. Amendments Nos. 5, 6 and 7 are fairly simple in their wording. They are to substitute the words "5 years" where "3 years" is currently in place. Amendment No. 8 inserts the following section 9A on page 5: Notwithstanding subsection (9), the court may, in making an order under subsection (2), specify that a longer period shall apply before an application for removal may be made, having regard to— (a) the nature and seriousness of the offence, and (b) the need to protect the safety and wellbeing of the victim and, where relevant, any children or dependents.". Amendment No.”
“I move amendment No. 4: In page 4, between lines 7 and 8, to insert the following: “(4A) For the purposes of subsection (2)(d), the court shall be satisfied that— (a) the consent of the victim is freely and voluntarily given, (b) the victim has been provided with sufficient information and access to appropriate supports, including from specialist domestic violence services, to enable informed and safe decision-making, and (c) such consent may be withdrawn at any time prior to the inclusion of the judgment in the Register.”.”
“Deputy Gannon's amendment essentially puts in a provision that in the event of somebody being deceased the family should be consulted and I fully support that.”
“To give the logic for these amendments, Safe Ireland has argued for the provisions in amendments Nos. 2 and 4 to be included in this legislation. These amendments are about ensuring victims are properly protected when deciding whether a judgment should be included on the register. We know a conviction does not always bring an end to abuse. Many victims continue to experience intimidation, harassment and coercive control long after court proceedings have been concluded. Therefore, victims should also have the right to withdraw their consent at any point before publication of this register and that decision should be fully respected. The objective is simple. It is to ensure that victims can make fully informed decisions in a way that prioritises their safety and well-being at all times. That is a sentiment that is widely shared.”
“I move amendment No. 2: In page 3, line 29, after “subsection (4)” to insert “and (4A)”. Amendments Nos. 2 and 4 are in my own name and I also record my support for amendment No. 3 in the name of Deputy Gannon. Amendment No. 2 may appear to be technical and inserts “and (4A)” after subsection (4). Amendment No. 4 proposes to insert in page 4, between lines 7 and 8, the following: “(4A) For the purposes of subsection (2)(d), the court shall be satisfied that— (a) the consent of the victim is freely and voluntarily given, (b) the victim has been provided with sufficient information and access to appropriate supports, including from specialist domestic violence services, to enable informed and safe decision-making, and (c) such consent may be withdrawn at any time prior to the inclusion of the judgment in the Register.”.”
“Let us not depend on a future Minister or a future Oireachtas to fix this at a later stage. Let us actually ensure that we live up to the spirit of this legislation, which has come about from the campaign and work of Jason and the Poole family, by ensuring it is as comprehensive as possible. I again ask the Minister to consider these amendments even at this late stage.”
“She made the point that when a woman, in the majority cases we are talking about women, goes to a Garda station to make a complaint about domestic violence you can virtually bet your life that it is not the first instance of domestic violence that she has encountered. It is usually after a prolonged period of abuse that somebody will get the wherewithal, the courage and the support necessary to bring that to the attention of the Garda. When somebody has managed to get to the point where they are making a complaint to the Garda and if the gardaí looking at the evidence see the merit of bringing a charge against the individual and they bring that to court and it results in a conviction, then absolutely there should be no question but that should be recorded in this register. I again appeal to the Minister. Let us get this right.”
“We must bear in mind that the vast majority of domestic violence offences and abuses never make their way to court. Most of them never result in a complaint. When complaints are made, most of them never see a file being sent to the DPP. Even when that happens, most of them never actually make it to court. The vast majority of cases involving sexual or gender-based violence or domestic abuse will never actually come before a court. When they do, even the most minor of offences are generally just the tip of the iceberg. If somebody is the subject of a summary conviction for domestic violence abuse, in the majority of, not all, cases, that is just a small signal of a pattern of abuse. Margaret Loftus made this point very passionately when she spoke at the justice committee's launch of the report on gender-based violence last week.”
“One of the fears relating to this legislation, which has been mentioned here and in the Seanad, is that somebody might seek to look at the register. If somebody is going to look at this register, it means that there are concerns. If they look and see that somebody's name is not on it, that might give them a sense of unfounded relief. The Minister was at pains, and rightly so, to say that this is what it is and that it should not be taken as an absolute guarantee of anything. However, if somebody has been convicted of domestic violence offences, either summarily or in the context of a section 3 conviction, and is not included in the register, then the truth of the matter is that the register is not going to be as fulsome as it should be. This is the crucial point.”
“10 reads, "In page 5, line 31, after “section 2” to insert “or section 3”." Section 3 criminalises recording, sharing or publishing an intimate image without consent where it seriously interferes with a person's privacy or causes alarm, distress or harm to them. For what I consider logical reasons, this should also be added to the list of offences. Amendment No. 12 states: In page 5, between lines 32 and 33, to insert the following: “(j) an offence under section 33 of the Domestic Violence Act 2018.”. This amendment adds a breach of a domestic violence order, as the Minister said, to the list of offences that will lead to people being included on the domestic violence register. This makes absolute sense. It will be a real omission if it is not included, particularly if we genuinely want this to be a domestic violence judgment register.”
“I again appeal to the Minister, even at this late stage, to accept the amendment and create an offence under section 2 where a crime is committed against a spouse, civil partner, cohabitant or person living in an intimate relationship in order that we might get to the core of this. If the Minister is not willing to accept the amendment, I ask him to provide assurances, insofar as it is possible, that the Director of Public Prosecutions, DPP, will take into account the fact that any plea bargaining reducing a section 3 charge to a section 2 charge in a case of domestic violence would allow an offender to evade inclusion on the domestic violence register. This should be a caveat for the DPP in his or her consideration of plea bargains that might not have been in place heretofore. Amendment No.”
“As has been mentioned, Women's Aid has warned that many domestic violence-related offences under the Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act are prosecuted summarily in the District Court and, therefore, would not be captured by the proposed register. We also know that many domestic charges are reduced to lesser offences through plea bargaining. I refer, for example, to a section 3 offence being reduced to a section 2 assault. This was the situation in one very high-profile case recently. Under the Bill, where a section 2 assault is committed against an intimate partner, it would result in that person not being included on the register when, in fact, we know that the offence is, most likely, part of a pattern of domestic violence and abuse.”
“The key is always that when we have got to the point where legislation with such widespread political support has been introduced, we need to get it right. Amendments Nos. 9 10 and 12 are in my name. Amendment No. 9 proposes the following: In page 5, between lines 21 and 22, to insert the following: “(ai) section 2, where the offence is committed against a spouse, civil partner, cohabitant or person in an intimate relationship;”. The reason for this amendment is that there is a genuine concern that the ambit of the legislation is too narrow and will not capture the bulk of domestic violence offences.”
“As I mentioned on Second Stage, I welcome the fact that this Bill has progressed as speedily as it has. I have commended the Minister and his officials on prioritising what is a singular piece of legislation. It is a huge testimony to the family of Jennifer Poole, particularly Jason, because they have convinced the entirety of political opinion in this House of the merits of this measure. That is a phenomenal achievement on their part. I want to say to them that they have done Jennifer proud by being able to do so much. The Minister mentioned that the great thing about legislation is that once it is introduced, it can be amended at a later stage. However, he will know that the process in this regard is not simple.”
“I ask the Minister and the Minister of State to learn from their mistakes and engage with all Members of this House and the appropriate committees before the very last minute, as has been standard up until now.”
“I say to those Opposition parties that have taken the opportunity to attack Sinn Féin every time the ARP comes up that they should read the Government's report, namely the regulatory impact analysis relating to the Residential Tenancies (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2026. That set out very clearly what Sinn Féin has said time and time again in relation to the ARP scheme, namely, that it is having a negative impact on the private rental sector. That is beyond doubt. Dragging this out and then creating another cliff edge in March of next year will affect thousands of people whom we do not yet know how they are going to be housed and whether the Government is going to introduce something else that will further distort the private rental sector or the housing market.”
“We still do not have transparency regarding the number of dwellings that were utilised in the context of this scheme and that should and could have been available on the private rental market. That is the litmus test. In its documentation and reports, the Department of housing has acknowledged that this scheme had an impact on the private rental market, yet Government has consistently refused to divulge exactly how big that impact has been. That points to a fear on the part of the Government that if the figures were divulged, it would be seen to have used taxpayers' money to create a significant distortion, especially in areas where rents in the private rental market would traditionally have been lower. People have been denied housing as a result of this scheme. That is unacceptable.”
“Let us bring it back to the original intention. This payment should be for people who are accommodating, in their own homes, people fleeing war. Everybody accepts that is a good initiative which should be supported. In fact, that type of initiative should be expanded to other people in need of housing. Every time our amendments have been brought forward, the Government has rejected them and denied the existence of any of the issues at the heart of them. To their shame, other Opposition parties have also objected and refused to support the amendments to which I refer and called me all sorts of names for having the audacity to look for a bit of fairness and transparency in respect of all this. This scheme will end in March next year.”