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 12 of 30.
“There are countries in Latin America that are independent today because Monaghan people emigrated or, in some instances, were exiled. The Fenians attempted to capture Canada at one point, led by a Monaghan man. The history of Monaghan's migration was one of outward migration for many centuries. For the past number of decades, however, even though we are a rural county, we probably had much more immigration proportionately than many other counties. There are a number of reasons for that, and one is that we have a strong and vibrant agrifood sector. Employment permits were issued originally to people from eastern Europe and now from all over the world. County Monaghan had one of the first direct provision centres.”
“The body carrying out the assessment would carry out a statutory consultation with the relevant local authority and community stakeholders and the centre would not commence operation until that consultation period had concluded and the community impact assessment had been published. This is critical because all of the debates around migration and, specifically, IPAS have taken place in the context of this aspect of our international protection system being handled disastrously. I would say disgracefully. I say that as someone who comes from a rural county, Monaghan. As I mentioned earlier, I was born a migrant across the water. The history of Monaghan is a history of migration to places all over North America.”
“This is a critical amendment from Sinn Féin's perspective. It sets out that, prior to any new IPAS accommodation being established, the Minister would ensure that a community impact assessment was prepared and published, the impact assessment would be carried out by the relevant local authority or other such competent body as the Minister may appoint, and the community impact assessment would include information pertaining to the projected capacity of the proposed centre, an assessment of the local service impacts, community engagement plans, proposed mitigation measures and an analysis of the Pobal deprivation index for the area concerned, including consideration of whether the proposal would contribute to a disproportionate concentration of accommodation centres in disadvantaged communities.”
“(3) A Community Impact Assessment shall include— (a) the projected capacity of the proposed centre, (b) an assessment of local service impacts, (c) community engagement plans, (d) proposed mitigation measures, and (e) an analysis of the Pobal Deprivation Index for the area concerned, including consideration of whether the proposal would contribute to a disproportionate concentration of accommodation centres in disadvantaged communities. (4) The body carrying out the Assessment under subsection (2) shall conduct a statutory consultation with— (a) the relevant local authority (where it is not itself the assessing body), and (b) community stakeholders. (5) A centre shall not commence operation until— (a) the consultation period has concluded, and (b) the Community Impact Assessment has been published.”.”
“I move amendment No. 15: In page 26, after line 30, to insert the following: “Community impact assessments prior to location of international protection accommodation 14. (1) Prior to the establishment of any new accommodation centre under this Act, the Minister shall ensure that a Community Impact Assessment is prepared and published. (2) A Community Impact Assessment shall be carried out by— (a) the relevant local authority, or (b) such other competent body as the Minister may appoint for that purpose.”
“What does the Minister of State mean by "look at"? Does he see the Oireachtas being informed about the ongoing work? It is as clear as mud at this point. I gather from his response that this is an important issue that requires clarification and potentially a response through regulation. Is it a provision in this Bill? Will this section allow this matter to be resolved and will it be resolved through Britain being designated a safe third country? Is that what is proposed?”
“Considering the lengthy discussion we had about the common travel area and the senior Minister's charge in respect of all the good work that is being done in terms of the collaboration with the British Government, will the Minister of State clarify that after this Bill passes unless Britain is designated rapidly as a safe third country, there will be questions about how applicants can be returned to Britain? This is an important point and I raise it because the public would welcome clarification on it, but also because it may require further amendment to clarify the onus on us. As the Minister of State said, and as I have mentioned a number of times, the assertions from Government are that over four in five applicants in our IPAS system are coming via the common travel area, so this is not a moot point.”
“This is again dealing with the concept of a safe third country. I want to go back to the situation with Britain as a result of the amendment of the 2015 Act. As the Minister of State will know, following Brexit, Ireland could no longer use the EU Dublin III regulation to return international protection applicants to Britain, but for a while Britain remained a de facto safe third country because of the 2015 Act and the regulations still listed in it. Then in 2022 the Government formally stopped treating Britain as a safe third country due, I think, to the advice of the Attorney General. That effectively ended Britain's practical status as a safe third country for Ireland even though the original designation was made in 2015.”
“The previous Act designated Britain a safe third country - at least that is my understanding - and the current Bill does not. Instead, it creates a case-by-case safe third country test that requires the Minister to assess whether a country meets specific standards. Because Britain is not part of the EU framework any more, am I right in saying a new assessment would have to be carried out? Will the Minister of State clarify whether Britain will be deemed, post the enactment of this legislation, a safe third country?”
“I have a couple of technical questions. Section 5 removes several parts of the 2015 Act, repealing Part 2, Part 8 and specific sections. It is effectively clearing out older procedures to make way for the new system. Are there old procedures that are not included in the new Act? If so, can some detail be provided on that? Part 2 sets out the framework for making international protection applications, including preliminary interviews and how claims are lodged. If he has that information, will the Minister of State detail what the change will look like in the application process, the interview process and the lodging of claims? If this Act comes into place in the summer, what will be the difference between September and now?”
“I ask the Minister of State for clarification. Section 4 sets out how official documents can be served. It allows for delivery in person, by post or electronically. It defines valid email and phone contact points, explains the use of a secure online portal and states when a service is legally deemed completed. Is the Minister of State satisfied the section does not potentially create a problem whereby documents might be deemed served even though an applicant may not have received them? Does he feel amendments might be required to make it abundantly clear that where a document is deemed served on an applicant, the applicant has actually received it?”
“How many extra staff are going to be provided, how much extra funding is going to be provided and when is that going to be funded? Will the Minister of State ensure all those measures are put in place before he assigns these additional responsibilities to a State agency that has not been able to fulfil the responsibilities it already has?”
“May I follow up on that? Will the Minister of State put detail on that? How many new staff are going to be allocated to Tusla in order to fulfil the responsibilities being assigned to it? How many staffing posts are vacant within Tusla and how is the gap actually going to be filled? When the Minister of State talks about-----”
“11, notwithstanding the fact it has been ruled out of order at this stage, will actually be adhered to, and that he will ensure that he as Minister of State and the senior Minister and the Department are absolutely confident that Tusla can do what is asked of it before we enshrine in law its capacity to do all that.”
“Of course, the whole issue of international protection and Tusla in the public mind has been mixed up with the absolutely terrible story of a young girl going missing who was subsequently allegedly attacked at the Citywest centre, and how Tusla dealt with the situation. That was a young girl who went missing, a 12-year-old girl. Nobody knew about it, and then Tusla issued what was, quite frankly, a victim-blaming statement that talked about a 12-year-old child's behavioural issues. This is the organisation we are giving more responsibility to. I really hope the Minister of State can give us some assurance that the principles of amendment No.”
“Before we adopt section 3, we need to have assurances that that is in place. Otherwise, I do not know how we can adopt section 3, which allows for the Minister by regulations to provide for any matter referred to in this Bill and outlines the different regulations that may be made under this Bill. We are going to be entrusting Tusla, an organisation that does not have the best track record in caring for children, with more responsibilities. It has told us, or at least the evidence before the committee suggests, that there are serious questions as to the ability of that organisation.”
“Can he give an assurance that for the issue of care of unaccompanied minors, the structures and resources will be in place, that we will not have children in the international protection system who are in accommodation provided by private, for-profit operators with sometimes very dubious track records, and that we will have the personnel and staff in place within Tusla to provide care? If the Minister of State can give that assurance, most Members of the House will be quite surprised. The experience with Tusla in terms of every other care it has responsibility for is that it is not in a position to do that across the board. I do not know how, therefore, we can in any way be confident that passing legislation that increases the administrative workload and operational responsibilities on Tusla is going to happen.”
“That report would include an assessment of the staffing levels, the operational capacity, the organisational structures of the Child and Family Agency insofar as they related to the performance of its functions under the Act, an assessment of the financial and other resources available to the agency for the purpose of fulfilling those functions, and confirmation that the agency was in a position to comply with its statutory obligations under the Act upon its commencement. The amendment is not there, but can the Minister of State give an assurance that Tusla is going to have the capacity to deal with the additional responsibilities the Government is forcing through in this rushed legislation?”
“The general scheme debate at pre-legislative scrutiny stage dealt comprehensively with the number of young people going missing from Tusla care, the majority of them having been unaccompanied minors in the international protection system. The number is astounding, but what is more astounding is the lack of public focus on the issue. Unless we have major investment and staffing increases and shake up Tusla, we cannot have any confidence whatsoever. That is why we have brought forward amendment No. 11, which would have called on the Minister prior to the commencement of the Act to lay before the Houses of the Oireachtas a report on the capacity of the Child and Family Agency to discharge its statutory function.”
“The legislation that is being brought forward now requires Tusla to take on greater responsibilities for assessing, for supporting and accommodating unaccompanied minors, for co-ordinating child protection interventions and for ensuring welfare safeguards during any procedures involving children. In practice, that will mean Tusla's workload for reception, oversight, care and planning for vulnerable young applicants is going to be expanded. The burden of responsibility on Tusla is going to be much greater. If we look at the here and now, Tusla is under-resourced and overstretched as it is. It is unable to meet its statutory duties for vulnerable children, including unaccompanied minors in the international protection system.”
“Seriously, how can the Minister of State enact this, which will place additional issues and pressures on Tusla, without ensuring that it has the staffing, the resources and the operational capacity to meet what is expected to be very expanded statutory duties that will involve unaccompanied minors, issues around delays, inconsistent care and the system strain? The pre-legislative scrutiny process, when we were dealing with the general scheme, heard from numerous witnesses at the committee that there are very serious concerns around the ability of Tusla to do the jobs it already has never mind the work that we have here.”
“The Ceann Comhairle mentioned the rationale for amendment No. 11 being ruled out of order. It would be appropriate if the Minister of State could give an indication as to how exactly these Houses are to have any faith whatsoever that Tusla will be in a position to carry out the obligations that are placed on it as a result of the measures in the Bill. I take it from the Ceann Comhairle's guidance that the part of the amendment that precluded it from being taken is subsection (3) which indicates that the Act cannot commence until the report that is sought in the earlier subsections is furnished. In that regard, I will try to have a better-worded amendment on Report Stage.”
“I am hoping that the Minister will give an indication that he will accept some, if not all, of those amendments, which, as I said, are just putting the principle of the best interests of the child in various sections. However, I do think it would be important that the House vote on at least one of those to send out a very clear message that they are the guiding principles by which we judge ourselves.”
“It was not a million miles away - across the water - but the experience of an immigrant child is very peculiar because growing up is hard to do and especially for older children and teenagers. It can be a very traumatic experience, and we need to be cognisant of that because regardless of whether somebody is entitled to ultimately to be in Ireland, we want their experience to be a positive one from the start. If they are not entitled to be in Ireland and they go elsewhere in the world, we still want their experience of dealing with the Irish system to have been fair and humane. I commend this amendment. I will press each of the amendments.”
“They want a system where decisions are made quickly but where they are the right decisions, so that if people have an entitlement to be here, they receive that entitlement and they are supported to become fully fledged members of our communities, and if they do not have an entitlement to be here, that decision is made quickly. In the meantime, when that decision is being made, I believe the vast majority of Irish people want people to be treated decently. They want people to be treated with the same responsibilities and the same rights and benefits we would expect Irish people to receive elsewhere. They are just fundamental principles. There is a particular empathy with young people who are emigrants. I was born as an emigrant.”
“That is why I welcome the amendment from Deputies Gannon and Kelly that set out a definition. Again, I would ask the Minister whether he is accepting that definition. I think the definition is 100% fine. If he is not accepting the definition, is he going to bring forward another definition or is there going to be a definition for rights of the child? In respect of amendments Nos. 17, 20, 134, 154, 192 and 206, which are in different parts of the legislation and refer to very specific roles regarding the best interests of the child, that principle is set in as an important general instruction to those who will be charged with manning the international protection system. It is important. The Irish people want a system that works.”
“Whatever about the merits of the case or whatever else, it is academic. It does not matter. Their interests need to be protected. We also know that for what I would consider to be too large a number of unaccompanied minors who come into the State, in many respects, there is a hidden hand behind their arrival in Ireland. Some of it is quite nefarious and some of it is very dangerous in terms of the safety of the children. There are bad actors - the terms "people smugglers" or "human traffickers" could be applied to them. Therefore, it is crucially important that this State has very robust procedures, absolutely, but also that it ensures the welfare of the child does not come into question. I agree with everything that has been said that when we talk about any core principle, we also need to define it.”
“Sinn Féin will be supporting amendment No. 10. I just want to speak to amendments Nos. 17, 20, 134, 154, 192 and 206, which are in my name and which set out very clearly in a number of different provisions within the Bill that the best interests of the child should be a primary consideration in the carrying out of any procedures. This is really important for a number of reasons. Children are clearly very vulnerable in many aspects. There is a whole raft of areas of concern about how children are treated in the international protection system, particularly when we are talking about very young children. They do not decide to arrive in Ireland or anywhere else and make an international protection application. If they are with their parents or guardian, that decision has been made on their behalf by their parent or guardian.”
“Adopt this amendment now and amend it later so that at least we will be in a better position than we are currently, when the term "legal counselling" is not defined at all in the legislation. We would be better off making this amendment. I would be only too willing to accept a further amendment, if it provided the clarity and assurance required.”
“I have raised concerns previously in the context of domestic violence victims and their ability to access the courts and access justice, and to secure barring orders. There is the potential that this situation could get even worse. I believe that a report was provided to the Minister about this last year. It was published last summer. We are ten months on, I think, from its publication and nothing has happened. The Minister has a minority and a majority report. Either would be better than the situation we are in here. The provision is there. Considering the timeframe and the lack of clarity the Minister has provided, it is only fair that the Dáil set this out clearly at this point.”
“Virtually every single person who appeared before us told us that one of the big issues they have with this legislation is that the term "legal counselling" is not defined. The Minister corrected himself at the very last moment in acknowledging that my amendment indicates "from a practising solicitor or barrister" but very clearly states "or a person employed by the Legal Aid Board who is authorised to provide legal advice or representation”. I did that knowing of the pressures of the Legal Aid Board, which the Minister has also acknowledged. I do not know if he has had time to look back or get a report on the hearing yesterday, which some of his officials attended. Other Members who are present were also there and they might also attest to this. I am really concerned about the future of civil legal aid in this State.”
“Despite the fact that this legislation has been brought forward by the Department of justice with a senior Minister who, if I may say so, is an eminent barrister, they cannot give us a definition of legal counselling, not at pre-legislative scrutiny, not on Second Stage of the legislation, not on Committee Stage, and now the Minister is saying it will not even be on Report Stage. It will not be defined until it gets to the Seanad. Will it be on Committee Stage? We know where the Seanad amendments come and what happens with them. They are brought in here for an hour's debate and all the rest of it. This is despite the fact that we have been told this. I am not a legal expert and I have never pretended to be but I am the Chair of the Oireachtas justice committee.”
“It is actually farcical when you think about it. The Minister has dismissed all our criticisms about the rushed nature of this, the lack of scrutiny of this legislation and the absolute fallacy of signing up to an EU asylum migration pact. Regardless of the merits of signing up, the whole purpose of Protocol 21 is actually a benefit Ireland had whereby we can sign up and opt in at any stage. If we decide not to opt in, we could opt in at a later stage, but no. Because Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael had to be shown to be doing something on migration, it was a case of signing ourselves up and tying ourselves into a deadline of June 2026.”
“When representative organisations of legal practitioners are coming before the Oireachtas justice committee to say they do not know what "legal counselling" means, it is a big problem. When that is the case, you either get rid of the term "legal counselling" or you put in a definition that is easily understood to everybody. I do not believe we would be doing our job as members of the justice committee if we were to disregard what we were told during the pre-legislative scrutiny on the general scheme of the Bill. We were told by organisations representing the interests of those seeking international protection, by people in the legal profession and by experts on areas of migration who just want to ensure we have a legislative framework that actually works that this is a big problem. We need to fix it.”
“The more robust the first-instance process is and the more it is upheld at appeal stage, the better. It is also more likely to happen if people are well informed on how they move forward. I want clarification before I decide whether to press this amendment. The Minister said he is bringing forward another amendment. What is that amendment going to say? I am not looking for it word for word, but what is the context of it going to be? As members of the justice committee, I do not think we would be doing our job if we did not insist on the inclusion of a definition of "legal counselling". I agree with Deputy Kelly that "legal counselling" means nothing to people who know a lot more about law and legal matters than I do. I have to trust their judgment.”
“He is very quick to tell everybody that the median processing time at first instance has been reduced by two months, but not so quick to tell people that the IPAT appeals time is taking two and a half months extra than the year before. I presume, first of all, that the IPAT process is more expensive to the State. It would be helpful if the Minister could give us an indication of what proportion of those who appealed in 2025 - I have not got the figures yet - were successful at IPAT stage. For those who are ultimately successful, it would be better if they were successful at first stage. You want to get to a point with any system that has an appeals mechanism where a small minority of cases are appealed because there is trust in the system itself.”
“When you leave the front gates of Leinster House, the chances are that someone is going to give you legal advice in some regard. I know people who have lost their homes because they took legal advice from the wrong fella sitting at the bar who told them not to recognise the court, to cite common law from the 1500s, or whatever the case may be. There is a difference between getting legal advice and getting sound, solid legal advice. Here is the other point. The Minister mentioned the different stages. Of course, there might be different responsibilities on him depending on those stages. I remind him of something that is clearly shown by the figures for processing times that we outlined earlier.”
“The Minister has indicated that he is going to bring forward a definition of "legal counselling", but I have to say I have no sense from what he has said of what that definition will mean. He mentioned amendment No. 8 and the language in the directive. If it was as simple as taking the definition in its entirety, I presume it would be in place by now. To be clear, the amendment before us, amendment No. 7, does not limit legal counselling to legal advice from a practising solicitor. It also refers to "a person employed by the Legal Aid Board who is authorised to provide legal advice or representation". The Minister might inform the House of other avenues or other places where legal advice, legal support or counselling could be provided, but he has to tell us where that is.”
“If the Minister is not supporting this amendment, it would be crucially important that he sets out to the House what part of the amendment he is not supporting because, as I have said, this amendment is technical in nature. It seeks to set a definition for "legal counselling" that will appear in the Bill. Without it, the Bill is deficient. Therefore, it would be left up to some legal professional, probably a judge, to make a determination on what precisely "legal counselling" is. I suggest it is the role of this House to set that definition in place.”
“We also want to ensure the State lives up to its responsibilities under international law. That means that if somebody comes into this State seeking international protection, they must get a fair hearing. In order to get a fair hearing within the very narrow timeframe that the Bill sets - I think most people support that timeframe - they need to have access in some cases to legal advice or support. In my view, it is imperative that there is a definition. If the Minister is not supporting this amendment, I would like clarification on whether he plans to bring forward a further amendment in terms of providing a definition.”
“It means any "oral or written legal advice from a practising solicitor or barrister, or a person employed by the Legal Aid Board who is authorised to provide legal advice or representation". The reason the definition was sought and why so many raised it is because, as it stands, there is an assurance that people seeking international protection would be entitled to legal counselling. However, members of the legal profession have said they do not know what that means. "Legal counselling" could mean that somebody goes on ChatGPT, it could mean that they are talking to a call centre or it could mean that they are handed a leaflet that pertains to legal counselling. For the purpose of this process, it is crucially important because we want to have a robust system of international protection that works.”
“No, I know. I am surprised it is not because there are other proposals for definitions. The Minister would have read the pre-legislative scrutiny report by the committee and throughout that process, it was repeatedly flagged that the term "legal counselling" appears several times in the legislation but there is insufficient definition. Many of those who gave expert testimony to the committee raised the fear of risks of creating uncertainty as to what level of legal assistance international protection applicants would actually receive. In this amendment, we purposely tried to provide a clearly understood definition of what "legal counselling" would mean.”
“I move amendment No. 7: In page 20, between lines 8 and 9, to insert the following: “ “legal counselling” means oral or written legal advice from a practising solicitor or barrister, or a person employed by the Legal Aid Board who is authorised to provide legal advice or representation;”. I am surprised the amendment was necessary. I know there are other amendments. I am not sure if or why this was not grouped because throughout the PLS process-----”
“We need to be clear that a lot of the questions that people have about international protection cannot be answered by the Minister precisely because we are a divided country and we do not have any mechanism in place to have an arrangement with the British Government to address those issues, being mindful of the point I made earlier. It is bad enough we have two states on this island but the fact the northern state has no competency whatsoever in respect of migration makes it even more complicated. The only mechanism we have to address these issues is through bilateral arrangements with the British Government.”
“One of the fundamental problems we have with the approach of the Minister and Government on the EU asylum and migration pact is that they are enforcing and enacting a Bill that takes no cognisance of that. There is no reference to the common travel area in the Bill. The Minister has just rejected an amendment that would actually put an onus on Government to provide a detailed report on the implications and the mitigation measures put in place in respect of the common travel area. Let us have an honest debate and let us not try to put words in people's mouths.”
“I do not know why the Minister is being entirely disingenuous. He knows what Sinn Féin's position is. We want to get rid of the Border in our country. We want a unitary state and we have repeatedly said for those who want to manage the migration system, that is the single biggest step we could take to have the capacity of being able to do that. In terms of a bilateral arrangement with Britain, it means we would have the ability on the island of Ireland to actually be able to ensure we know who is coming in and who is moving out of our country at any given time. Yes, there is a fundamental problem in that our island is partitioned and part of our country operates within an EU framework and part does not.”
“It is in respect of the definition of "absconding". Ministers have stated repeatedly the figure is in excess of 80%. Figures of 80%, 85%, 90% and 90%-plus have been cited by different Ministers who have said the people seeking international protection are coming via the common travel area. I asked the previous Minister. Maybe this Minister can answer. What is the proportion? I suspect he does not know and therefore I suggest he stop bandying around figures. However, most people would accept a majority of those seeking international protection are coming through the common travel area. Therefore, as I have repeatedly said, I believe the Minister's priority should be pursuing a bilateral arrangement rather than actually moving to-----”
“We have consistently asked that the Minister would prioritise the issue of a bilateral arrangement. Without going through all the critiques of how he has approached the Bill and the huge amount of resources that are being put into bringing us into a EU framework when, by the Minister's admission and according to the statements of a significant number of Ministers, a large proportion of people who seek international protection-----”
“Everyone will accept that if we are going to have "absconding" in legislation, then we need to have a definition for it. On the point the Minister has raised, it would not matter if any political party wanted to have checks along the Border. As Theresa May and Boris Johnson found out, it is just not physically possible to do so with 300 Border crossings. Certainly, it would not be practical. That is why we have said very clearly that we need to advance towards Irish unity and deal with these issues on an all-Ireland basis. The Minister was not here for the previous debate. Does he accept the best way of dealing with all of these issues and to provide clarification and certainty to people across the island of Ireland would be to have a bilateral arrangement in place with his British counterpart?”
“I understand and I thank the Minister. This goes back to a point I made earlier. I have no objection to the amendment in itself but I ask the Minister for a little bit more clarification on the rationale as to why it is required and why it was not in the original Bill. What are the aspects of the Bill in which the term "absconding" is used and for which this definition is needed? Will the Minister provide a little bit of clarification on these points?”