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 11 of 30.
“I move amendment No. 16: In page 26, after line 30, to insert the following: “Transparency of accommodation contracts 14. (1) The Minister shall publish all contracts, subcontracts, financial schedules, performance reports, and compliance assessments relating to accommodation or services provided to international protection applicants. (2) Publication shall occur no later than 30 days after the signing of the relevant document. (3) Information may be withheld only where strictly necessary to protect commercially sensitive material, as defined by regulation, and such withholding must be justified in writing. (4) All documents published under this section shall be made available on a publicly accessible website maintained by the Minister.”. This amendment is an attempt to finally bring some level of transparency to IPAS contracts.”
“Members should read what the amendment states. It is eminently sensible. Members should listen to what people have said and not just interpret the amendment. They should note what we have said about the reason it is so important. If the Minister wants to make a proposal tonight that we should lift the guillotine and go down to the committee room to go through every single amendment and section at the level of detail I believe is warranted, I will happily second it for him.”
“On the one hand, the Minister is saying it will not really make any difference at all and, on the other, Opposition parties are saying it will be a recipe to stop every single development. It is exactly as it is written down. It is about carrying out a community impact assessment. I contend that anybody who votes against that would have serious questions to answer in their local community. How can you actually refuse to allow communities to have some real semblance of a say? Whatever about the merits or otherwise of individuals within the community engagement section of the Minister's Department, the truth of the matter is that the notion that there has been genuine community engagement on the locations of IPAS centres is laughable. It does not reflect the reality of anybody who has dealt with this issue.”
“Yes, there were, but to contend or suggest people who have raised concerns about the locations of IPAS centres are universally racist is doing a disservice not only to them but also to us, because it is exactly that type of attitude and suggestion that feeds into the narrative of the nasty actors I was talking about. If the genuine concerns people are raising are shot down and if people are accused of being racist, fascist or something along those lines, they will shut up and we will not hear from them again. We will not hear from them on election day. Most of them will just not show up. The real winners will be the very nasty actors, who do not represent communities and a huge proportion of the Irish people at all, as far as I am concerned. What I ask people to do in respect of this amendment is vote on what is actually in front of them.”
“It is not an adjudication as to whether a development in itself is good, bad or indifferent; however, as with every single development, there are places where any given development would be more appropriate. That should be respected. As a spokesperson on migration who has had a lot of engagement right across the country, not only with Sinn Féin supporters and members but also people who disagree with Sinn Féin’s position, who come from every possible angle you could contend with, and, crucially, local communities, I believe fervently that the vast majority of Irish people are not racist. Are there racists in our midst? Absolutely. Were there always?”
“I am really surprised there has been a suggestion by left-wing parties that we should reject an amendment that is simply calling for a community impact assessment before a development takes place. I would have thought it good politics to state locals should be involved in the conversation if anything is to be developed in their community. This is not to say any single person or group of people can stop a development taking place. The reason we have planning rules and so many of us have been so resistant to some of the Government's moves on planning is precisely because it has attempted to circumvent the need for local communities to have their say. This amendment is simply stating local communities should not be an afterthought when a development is taking place in them.”
“The only foreigners you could possibly accuse of being responsible for the housing crisis are the vulture funds and other international financiers, but primarily the fault lies with successive Governments that decided to stop building social and public housing. There was a suggestion that Sinn Féin said having an IPAS centre in an area is a big problem and that this was the tenor of the Sinn Féin contributions last week. I absolutely dispute that. I listened to party members on this. They are people who are rooted in their communities and have been for all of their political lives, and they are avowedly anti-racist and have track records to back it up. They pointed to both positive and negative experiences and also to the need for this amendment. I have a contention that sometimes gets lost.”
“One of the reasons, of course, is that a core basis on which left-wing economic policy can evolve and garner popular support is the need to build social cohesion and a sense of social solidarity. Large increases in population in a short space of time can disrupt that. Left-wing governments have recognised that throughout history. None of that is ever to suggest that it is the people themselves who are the cause of some of the challenges that arise. Nobody, certainly nobody in Sinn Féin, would contend for a second that the housing crisis in this State is as a result of somebody from outside Ireland coming here in search of a better life.”
“To suggest there is a linkage between being racist and having a policy on managing migration is a complete fabrication. Every state in the world has rules around migration. The variation is only in what those rules are, how they are implemented and whether they are actually enforced. Different governments have different levels of success in that regard. To suggest this is a left–right issue is completely false. Managing migration is the same as managing any other area of public policy. In fact, if you look around the world, you will see that some of the strictest immigration rules ever were implemented by some of the most left-leaning governments ever.”
“The Minister is right to be cynical as to whether this Government would heed a community impact assessment but he also knows that had I put a further stipulation on the amendment, it would have been ruled out of order, just as many amendments have already been ruled out of order. Therein lies the fact. I will respond to some of the other points that have been made. As a point of principle in all my political life, I am avowedly anti-racist. I do not tolerate racism. I do not believe racism should be tolerated within any section of society. Where I see it, I will call it out. I have a track record of that in my constituency. I imagine most Sinn Féin TDs are able to point to very proud work in respect of their anti-racism activities over many decades.”
“If anything led to resentment or fed into the hands of the racists and those other nasty actors who were trying to create divisions within our communities, it was the approach to accommodation that fed into all those narratives. There seems to be a little confusion around what this amendment sets out. I remind Members it sets out that a community impact assessment would be carried out by a local authority or another body as the Minister sees fit. That assessment would analyse the projected capacity, carry out an assessment of local service impacts and would include community engagement plans, any mitigation measures that might be required and an analysis of the Pobal deprivation index for the area concerned. The amendment states that report would be published.”
“The Minister can try to talk about fluctuations in demand and supply and all the rest but the truth of the matter is that for a long period, the only criterion that applied as to whether or not a building was used for international protection was the availability of that building and the willingness of the owner to use it for that purpose. Nothing else mattered, including whether that building happened to have been a resource for the community for another purpose. Homeless accommodation was closed down to be turned into international protection accommodation. Countless hotels and countless other community resources were taken away from those communities. That is not good enough. What this amendment is about is acknowledging, on behalf of the Oireachtas, that we recognise that is a bad way of going about it.”
“Sinn Féin Members, from right across the State, gave their experiences. They did set out positive experiences of integration where accommodation centres were located and had positive impacts, where the groundwork, planning and engagement were done. Well within their rights, Members set out where none of that happened. What happened was the absolute turmoil that many local communities were thrown into at no service whatsoever. Nobody will tell me that was in the best interest of any applicant for international protection who was put into an accommodation centre on that basis.”
“Those are the true facts about the record of this Government in dealing with this. Every single ounce of effort by the Department has been put into adhering to an arbitrary deadline because his predecessor signed us up lock, stock and barrel to the EU migration and asylum pact. Therein lie the failures and problems we now have. We are dealing with guillotined legislation. It is being guillotined by the Minister, yet he is decrying that people will not get to discuss in the detail that is warranted other amendments that are coming down the line. Spare me, Minister. This amendment being put forward in my name on behalf of Sinn Féin is crucially important. For all the failures, the single message the Minister could allow to come out of this Chamber is that at least the Government is listening and hearing about the experience.”
“The reason this amendment has garnered so much discussion is it goes to the heart of the failures of the Government, including the Minister's party, Fine Gael and the Green Party in government, over the past five years. This issue, more than anything, is the issue that has caused division, frustration and anger within communities. If the Minister or any Member does not accept that, they are absolutely deluding themselves. The Minister has been a year in office. He managed to spend €1 million last year on communications and staff, so he has had good PR. He managed to set out the narrative that he is delivering, but even though fewer international protection applicants are coming to the State, processing times have got longer. The money the Government spent in 2025 versus 2024 has increased.”
“I am speaking in response to the Minister. He is the one who wanted to bring this to the floor of the Dáil. He is the one who refused the opportunity provided to him by the Oireachtas justice committee to have deliberations across every single amendment and section where these should be discussed - in the committee chamber. He was the one who wanted to allow it to take place on the floor of this Dáil, which means that every Member of this House is entitled to come in and speak to whatever amendment they wish to speak to. The Minister does not get to pick and choose and decide what amendments Opposition Members decide to speak to. They are absolutely acting within their right.”
“We need to stop treating special education as crisis management. These are our children and our schools. They deserve more than that.”
“They also need to bring a bit of accountability into their Department and ensure accountability from the NCSE. The responses we received to parliamentary questions in respect of special needs education are absolutely unacceptable. They give no information. When we get no information, it means the families get no information. Countless schools in my constituency still do not know whether they will have sanction for special classes come next September even though they have the space to cater for these classes, the demand for them and the utmost determination to deliver them. The blockage is with the Ministers' Department and the NCSE. There has to be a level of accountability. We now have some certainty regarding SNAs. That is crucially important but we need accountability across the board.”
“One of the things that has been inspiring and that brought Government to the point of releasing its late-night press statement was that the response has not just been from the families of children with additional needs or from the SNAs who love those children so much. The response was from whole schools. Communities up and down the country stood with those children who needed support and forced the Government to make what should have been an embarrassing U-turn, although it appears the Government is not embarrassed because the Ministers are still defending the situation that led to this catastrophe in the first instance. Deputy Darren O'Rourke and others have very clearly set out what needs to happen to deal with the issues regarding SNAs. The Ministers need to heed that advice.”
“What Ministers and Government have relearned over the past number of days is a lesson they should have copped onto long ago. You do not mess with children with special needs or with the people who care for them because they will fight tooth and nail to ensure the people they love have their rights protected. There is a familiar phrase that anybody who engages with families of children with special needs will have heard time and time again. We hear that it is a battle a day to secure what their children are entitled to, whether that is an assessment, treatment or the right class in the right school at the right time.”
“To suggest that the Government is doing what this says is completely disingenuous because the Government is not doing what lies at the heart of what an actual commission on family farming would do, namely, listen to farmers and find real solutions to ensure the model we should all be so proud of, the family farm model, is maintained into the future for young men and women all over this country. They want nothing more than to be able to farm their land, their father's land, their grandfather's land, or even new land that comes into the family. That is what they want, and they want a vehicle to be able to see a future in that. That is what this commission is about. The Government's amendment basically says, "This is as good as it gets". That is not acceptable, as far as I am concerned.”
“If we are talking about environmental standards and Irish farmers, we cannot then nod through, which is what Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael essentially did, a Mercosur trade deal that sees the potential for hundreds of thousands of additional beef and other meat products coming into the EU at the expense of rainforests and then point the finger at Irish farmers and talk about reducing herd numbers and all the rest of it. The biggest hypocrisy of all this was the week before the vote on the Mercosur trade agreement, when I saw Eamon Ryan, someone who had spent five years in this Chamber lecturing Irish family farmers, writing an op-ed endorsing the deal. That said it all, as far as I was concerned. That type of hypocrisy needs to end because farmers need fair play. This amendment is a joke, frankly.”
“Now we have an existential threat to the next CAP in terms of potentially a 25% reduction. The premise is simple. If we and the Government want farmers to do more, we pay them more, in the same way as we would pay anybody else providing us with a service more if they are giving us more. The final thing farmers need is fair play. They need fair play as to how the Department deals with them. Farmers should never look at the Department of agriculture as the enemy or as hostile. Certainly, the Department should never look at farmers as the enemy. All too often, however, that is the culture that prevails.”
“Farmers will get screwed time and again because the Government has not set a framework to protect them, and the food regulator has not got the teeth even to start the work that is necessary. Farmers need a fair CAP. Every single year, farmers are being asked to do much more. They are asked that by us as a society. European farmers, including Irish farmers, have the highest regulatory, animal welfare, environmental and biodiversity standards in the world. That is the service they are providing to society, and we are paying them less than ever before to provide that service. The current CAP is, in real terms, a significant reduction for Irish farmers on the previous CAP, yet we have a Government that insists that black is white. It keeps telling farmers they are getting paid more now than they were in the previous CAP.”
“It is because of the determination of family farmers to stay on the land. They have the answers and want to be heard. The commission is about ensuring farmers are at the centre of deciding how we map out a future for Irish family farming, not just so they can survive and live on their farms but so they can thrive and afford to us all the benefits we know of in terms of delivery. Why is that important? I have often used the phrase the 3 Fs. These are what farmers need. They need fair prices on an ongoing basis. Prices are fairly decent at the minute but we know there is considerable volatility and that as soon as there is any shock to the market, it is farmers who will take the hit. The retailers will hold on to their profit margins, as will the processors and factories.”
“What they said was simple but telling. They said they needed to be heard and that their voices needed to be at the centre of decisions made. As has been happening for decades, when decisions are made, farmers, who have to respond, are portrayed as backward for not accepting things foisted upon them. They end up trying to make the best of matters and to have some changes made. A Minister or backbench Government TD will say they secured the change but the manner in which decisions are made in the first place is where the problem lies. At the heart of a commission on the family farm, family farmers' voices must be central. They have the answers. Bearing in mind all of the regressions we have seen in terms of numbers, the fact that Ireland still has a family farm network is not thanks to Government policy and certainly not thanks to the CAP.”
“I hear people talking about the need to encourage young people into farming. You do not need to encourage them. Everywhere I go, I meet young people who are mad about farming and want nothing more than to go into it. They love the farm, they love the land, they love the work and they love their tractors. They love everything about it but cannot see a future in it for themselves. Therein lies the problem and the need for this Bill. The idea of the commission on the family farm came about on foot of work that a number of us in Sinn Féin had been involved in for a number of years. Included were Deputies Kenny and Kerrane, myself as an MEP at the time and others who had an interest. We were talking to farmers about what they actually needed to secure the future of family farming and how the Government could create a framework.”
“Also, food produced by family farmers has an added benefit for society and communities. When we are talking about the network of family farms in Ireland, we are talking about the nearest thing many towns, villages and entire regions have to an industry. It is the network of family farms that sustains towns, villages, GAA clubs and community life in general. A point completely missed in both the Government amendment and the Minister of State's contribution is that the family farm is under threat. How do we know that? The numbers tell us. The number of farmers in this State has been reducing every single decade at a rate I consider alarming, as have the numbers of cows and sheep on family farms. The number of young people coming into farming on an ongoing basis is declining to such a point that I would now argue it is at crisis point.”
“When so many of our policies are being formulated at EU level, we have to recognise the implications for the family farm model. When most Irish people think about farming, they think of the family farm model. That is the model they understand because it is predominant in most of our communities. However, it is not the model that is predominant across Europe because Europe has largely moved towards a corporate form of farming and food production, just as North America did beforehand. What is the difference between food produced by corporations and food produced by family farmers? First, the latter is of better quality and, I would argue, much more sustainable. The food densities and intensities are much more sustainable environmentally and in terms of biodiversity and every other measure.”
“Food Vision 2030, just like Food Wise 2025 before it, is not actually a plan for farmers; it is a plan for food production, and that is why I say that the Government continuously misses the point and why we have statistics such as those outlined by Deputy Fitzmaurice. The drive has been towards food production rather than supporting family farmers, and that is what is at the core of the Bill before us. There is a difference between the two. Food can be produced by conglomerates. It can be and is being produced by the largest corporations in the world. This is a societal choice. Do we want our food produced by conglomerates and the largest corporations in the world or by family farmers? Why would we want a future for the family farm model?”
“I have a certain amount of sympathy for the Minister of State. Clearly, the senior Minister could not be bothered to be here to participate in this debate, despite having had three weeks' notice. Not only did he send the Minister of State in but he sent him in to deliver a speech that completely misses the point, as does the Government's amendment. The amendment states that the objectives of the Bill have been comprehensively addressed and then refers to policy frameworks, Food Vision 2030, the CAP strategic plan and ongoing work arising from the commission on generational renewal in farming. I will come to the CAP strategic plan and generational renewal in a moment.”
“Regardless of what the Minister of State says changes to legislation will do, it will be of no comfort whatsoever to those people who are watching the Government break the law as it currently is. I asked her a specific question in respect of Cavan and Monaghan. How many children last year actually received an assessment of need within the legal time limit of six months? I will ask that question again.”
“How many children last year in counties Cavan and Monaghan actually received their assessment of need within six months, the legal time limit?”
“The Minister of State started her response by saying this is a priority for the Government. I would hate to see it if it were not a priority for the Government. Some 550 children have been waiting over six months for an assessment of need in the two small counties, population-wise, of Cavan and Monaghan. That is 550 times that the members of Government have broken the law. They are obliged under the Disability Act 2005 to ensure that children receive an assessment of need within six months. Imagine that. We have a Minister of State saying they have broken the law 550 times in just one constituency, but they are going to do something about it at some point in the future, including changing the law so they cover themselves and so they are not actually in breach of the law.”
“My question is in respect of the unacceptable number of children who are currently waiting for an assessment of need in counties Monaghan and Cavan in my constituency. I ask the Minister for an update on the number of children who have been waiting more than three, six and 12 months.”
“We know the value of international workers but we also know the benefits of companies providing housing and ensuring housing is in place for workers before they come because that makes integration and the life experience of those who are coming on permits and those who are already in the community much better. When that does not happen, it creates huge problems for housing demand locally. How precisely is housing need taken into account when deciding quotas?”
“I do not dispute anything the Minister of State said. When deciding what level of a quota any given sector is having beyond the construction sector, he said that his Department takes into account housing need and housing availability. How does the Department take this into account? On the one hand, we need international workers to help us build the homes that we need but, on the other, we have a housing shortage. When the population of a given area is substantially increased through any means, that is going to add pressure. How do those things balance out? The Cathaoirleach Gníomhach and I come from a county that has a large agrifood sector, no more than the Minister of State's constituency.”
“In other areas, huge pressure has been put on the local private rental market because international workers have taken that up. Will the Minister of State clarify what exactly he means when he says "take account of"? How will that be a deciding factor in allocating quotas?”
“I would appreciate clarity on some specific points. The Minister of State said a new list will be published next month. I assume that means quotas will be allocated to various sectors. He also said that when deciding those quotas, the Department will give consideration to other factors including housing and access to services. What precisely does "take into account" mean? We know about the pressures, in particular on the housing market. We also know that the only way we are going to increasing housing demand is through having international workers. There is a balance to be struck here. We know that in many areas there is a huge housing pressure. Some people who have come here on employment visas have ended up in desperate housing need and desperate housing conditions because their employers have not provided that or arranged that.”
“All it says is that before a new IPAS centre is opened, a community assessment should be carried out. We are saying to communities all over the country that they are going to be part of what happens in the same way they are when virtually anything else is being built and when they can have their say through the planning process. We are also saying that if something is being developed by someone with a bit of cop-on, they should engage with the local community and get the goodwill of its members. I am very proud of this amendment. I really hope the Government will indicate that there has been a sea change in the context of how we deal with this issue and that it is going to accept the amendment.”
“Engagement is what I described previously with regard to what was done in respect of resettlement programmes. I put that on the record because some of our amendments relating to due diligence and transparency have been ruled out of order. We have to get to the point where people are told the facts in respect of contracts that are being signed. Last year, €1.2 billion was spent on IPAS accommodation. That is more than €3 million each day. I really hope the Minister of State will indicate that the Government is going to accept amendment No. 15. There is nothing in it that would interfere with any other aspect of the International Protection Bill. Nothing in the amendment will prevent the Minister from doing anything in terms of processing or any of the other mechanisms.”
“Many communities and community leaders have been left in impossible situations. They want to ensure that anybody who moves into their area is welcomed and treated with dignity, but they are also dealing with the absurdity of more vulnerable people being brought into communities that are already full of vulnerable people and where services are stretched to breaking point. The amendment simply seeks to ensure that there will be proper community engagement in future. That engagement should not take the form of a consultation process like that which currently operates whereby what counts for engagement is elected representatives getting a phone call or an email to tell them that a contract has been signed, brought to an end or whatever. That is not engagement.”
“The location of IPAS accommodation has been determined by one factor, that is, the availability of buildings and the willingness of their owners to allow them to be used for the purposes of providing such accommodation. Nothing else has been taken into consideration. There is no assessment of either the capacity or the needs of the communities involved, of the purposes for which such buildings are being used or of the impact their being repurposed will have. Our amendment sets out how and why we need to deal with that. When you are dealing with profit motivation, the areas most likely to be the source are those where property is cheaper. Where is property cheaper? It is cheaper in areas that considered deprived in the context of the Government’s index, namely the Pobal HP deprivation index.”
“We have had countless towns which were struggling for economic regeneration and in which the last hotel was snapped up overnight with no engagement whatsoever. Of course, the elected Government representatives in these places go to ground when this happens. In many areas, it has been left to Sinn Féin representatives to try to be the bridge between communities and the Department and to get some semblance of understanding as to what was happening. In many cases, that put us in the firing line with those who were most angry. That is completely unfair. If we are going to live up to our responsibilities and recognise that mistakes were made, we have to put in place a mechanism by means of which those mistakes can be corrected. Let us make no mistake about it.”
“The amendment sets out very clearly for local communities – I include in this those who have made our towns, villages and cities their home in recent years – that never again will we allow such obscenities to happen. In that context, I refer to communities losing amenities and seeing buildings being converted into IPAS accommodation centres and things being done for the motivation of profit without their being engaged with. The amendment sets out the parameters as to how that would happen. I appeal to the Ministers to accept it. If they do not, they will be sending a message to the effect that what happened before could happen again. Some of the stories I have heard are absolutely obscene.”
“That system began in rural communities. It then began to be put in place in urban communities more often. The one thing all the communities involved had in common when this happened was that they were already deprived of services, amenities and investment, both public and private. More than any single action taken or any set of decisions made, that was what led to the hostility and anger we have seen across our country. There are people standing by who are ready to manipulate that anger and turn it against those in the accommodation to which I refer as opposed to turning it against those who were at fault, namely the successive Governments that allowed the system to come into place. Everybody accepts that we need change.”
“Something else needed to happen at that point. Rather than learning from the mistakes that were made, those responsible decided to try to find emergency accommodation. Did they put in place a State body? No. What they did was go back to the same people again and provided them with more profits. It was decided to find intermediaries. That was the term used at the time. As a result of all this, people in the rural communities close to where I live who had already lost their post offices and Garda stations and who had no amenities other than their local hotels, woke up one morning to discover that - without any engagement with them - they were being turned into IPAS centres. If the Government were to try to create division, resentment and anger in local communities, it could not have done it any better.”
“I would love to have been a fly on the wall to try to understand the mentality of the people who sat around and said they could examine international models of how best to manage this only for somebody to say that we needed to figure out a way for a few of their mates to make money out of this, because that is essentially what happened with direct provision. In this regard, I often think of a scenario where someone asked what would happen if they converted a building into a direct provision facility and the numbers dropped. I can imagine a Fianna Fáil representative saying, “Don't worry. We'll make the process so slow that once someone is accommodated in your centre, they'll be there so long you'll be guaranteed to make your return out of it.” By the mid-2010s, the direct provision system was full to the seams.”
“We dealt with all of the contingencies and potential issues that might arise and all of the mitigation measures that needed to be in place were thrashed out and planned. Those resettlement programmes were a huge success. People who came through the scheme as kids are now adults and play a vital and very welcome role in our communities. That is how to do things right. Move forward and we see the debacle of direct provision and how it was allowed to run roughshod and become a source of profit for a small number of individuals. In the late 1990s and early 2000s and for the first time ever, Ireland became a destination for people seeking international protection or asylum.”
“We have had a success story in terms of people coming to our county, making it their home and making our communities more vibrant. Local communities have embraced and welcomed people. People have come to Monaghan from the Congo, Syria and elsewhere on official resettlement programmes. I was a member of the local authority when those resettlement programmes happened. This will sound alien, but I will tell Deputies about my experience. Prior to those programmes, the council was asked to appoint a number of members to sit on a preparation group. We attended meetings with health and education services, the Garda, the local authority and the Department well in advance of resettlement.”