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 15 of 30.
“I have said time and again that I do not know why the Minister refuses to act. There has to be a thorough review of every IPAS contract because there are, without question, other scandals that have yet to be divulged to Irish taxpayers who are picking up the tab. It is disgraceful that Ministers just shrug off any calls for accountability and transparency in respect of this matter. In the pre-legislative scrutiny report on general scheme of the International Protection Bill, there was a recognition of the profiteering that has taken place to date and a recommendation that the amount paid per day per bed for accommodation in the international protection system be capped.”
“His report found there was a lack of due diligence, gaps in payment controls and no contracts for properties where substantial payments were being made. There were even issues with a lack of insurance and fire certificates. The report found that the detail in some invoices lacked clarity, that it was not possible to reconcile claimed capacity in some cases as contracts were not available, and that the prepayment checklist used by IPAS did not include a check to verify the correct capacity or occupancy. The review found that for 35% of the samples examined, the invoiced rate was not clear and could not be verified because signed contracts were not available. Those issues emerged on foot of just a small sample of the contracts examined by the Comptroller and Auditor General. What is happening is clear.”
“There is no transparency, including around what qualifies many of these operators to provide services. The accommodation and the services provided at a very high cost have, it must be said, also often been low quality. There have been significant problems in relation to issues such as fire safety. The average rate that is being paid per bed per day for IPAS accommodation rose by 68% between 2022 and 2024. That resulted in massive profits for providers of accommodation. In one case, we famously saw a company that was previously operating as a café go from making €2,000 in profits annually to paying its directors €4.5 million in a single year. The Comptroller and Auditor General was scathing in his review of IPAS contracts.”
“That is the reality that the Minister has attempted to obscure by focusing on a small number of high-profile deportation flights. By removing profiteering, resourcing the system and enforcing decisions, we could actually have a fair system that works for the people of this country and for those fleeing war and persecution. Binding us to EU rules that do not account for our unique challenges is not the answer. Any discussion on the international protection system must address the massive, ongoing profiteering from the provision of IPAS accommodation that is often inappropriate . The cost of IPAS accommodation exceeded €1 billion last year. Hundreds of millions more will be spent on accommodation for Ukrainians. A small number of private operators have made millions from the Government's dysfunctional approach.”
“Decisions and appeals are taking too long. On average, it now takes more than two and a half years for an international protection application to be finalised. Deportations are not enforced. Ministers have acknowledged here time and time again that in many cases they do not actually know whether people who are subject to orders have left the country or not. Last year, there were 4,700 deportation orders signed and 2,700 confirmed deportations. In 2024, there were 2,403 deportation orders signed and 1,122 confirmed deportations. In 2023, there were 859 orders and 318 confirmed deportations. It can be seen that in each of those years, the figures relating to confirmed deportations were less than half the number of those signed.”
“We need a bilateral agreement with Britain to ensure those international protection applicants who should be processed in Britain can be returned there in a timely way. In 2020, Ireland and Britain signed and agreed informal non-legally binding operational arrangements, but very little has been done to advance these. It is now time to do so. I contend that doing so should be a priority. As a sovereign state, Ireland can and should put in place an international protection system and migration policy that is robust, fair and enforced and that is based on the unique circumstances and challenges that the State faces. That this is not yet being done is a political failure. It is because of the failures of Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael in government that our migration and international protection system is operating in crisis mode.”
“The fact that opt-outs under Protocol 21 exist in the first place is the result - as Government acknowledged in its own electronic travel authorisation, ETA - of the need to maintain the CTA with Britain. What we learned from the justice committee's pre-legislative scrutiny of the general scheme of what has become the International Protection Bill is that while the Government signed up to all aspects of the pact, it is not prepared for the implications of that. Officials acknowledge that there is no consideration regarding the CTA area and that the Department has no idea how much we could be liable for in infringement proceedings if we are unable to meet the requirements of the pact. I have raised with the Minister on a number of occasions the need for a bilateral agreement with Britain on returns.”
“That was because these regulations are necessary for the sharing of information and implementing a returns policy. That makes sense, but we also have to recognise that protecting and maximising sovereignty in the context of EU integration has been demonstrated to be an important value of the Irish people. We have seen that with EU treaties. It is the people of this country who are best placed to make decisions and adjudicate on Governments in the context of how they are implemented. The Government signed up to all aspects of the EU pact but is not prepared to deal with the implications of that. As already stated, there is no consideration of the common travel area, CTA, despite Government asserting that most international protection applicants actually arrive via the CTA.”
“I firmly believe, and I will continue to say this, that it should be a priority for this State to retain maximum sovereignty in the areas of freedom, security and justice. That is why we had an opt-out under Protocol 21. In the context of the migration and asylum pact, I have stated that we should not have opted in to the procedures regulation, the crisis on force majeure regulation, the qualification directive, the reception conditions directive or the EU settlement framework. I have acknowledged it and Sinn Féin has said this. It appears that this is what the Minister does not understand. There are a number of aspects of the pact that it was in Ireland's interest to opt into. We supported opt-ins relating to the asylum and migration management regulation and the Eurodac regulation.”
“If we are to have a robust, fair and enforceable system, concerns that the Bill may not provide sufficient protections for vulnerable applicants, including victims of trafficking and stateless persons, need to be addressed. Significant concerns were raised during the pre-legislative scrutiny process regarding what is meant by legal counselling and who will be able to provide it. These need to be addressed. There are also concerns about the ability to meet the timeframes set out in the Bill, given the current crisis in legal aid and the fact that Tusla is significantly overstretched. Stakeholders and legal experts have told us about other concerns, and if the Minister does not allow the committee to deal with them during the process he will essentially prevent the Oireachtas from doing its job.”
“We do not need the pact to address the ongoing profiteering that is the hallmark of this system. We do not need an EU pact for any of those things. We need a competent government. Instead, we are presented with a complex and extensive Bill that has been rushed through to comply with an EU deadline. This is no way to legislate or to allow proper scrutiny. Before we even begin to look at this Bill, we are told the Minister will be introducing substantial amendments on Committee Stage. It appears that the Government may also attempt to bypass the committee, again avoiding proper scrutiny of all aspects of this Bill. This rushed, panicky approach leads me to believe it will be only a matter of time before these Houses are dealing with amending legislation to fix new problems, which will undoubtedly emerge in the implementation of this Bill.”
“In fact, that approach diverts efforts away from addressing them and into the charade we have today, where the Department is instead concentrating on rushing legislation through the Oireachtas to meet an EU deadline. As has been said many times, the pact does not consider Ireland’s unique position as a divided nation with an EU member state and a non-EU member state, and as a State that is part of a common travel area with a neighbouring island outside the EU, from which most international protection applicants, the Minister tells us, actually travel to Ireland. Let us be clear: we did not need to sign up to the EU migration and asylum pact to sort out delays in processing applications. We did not need the pact to address delays in the appeals system. We did not need the pact to ensure decisions are enforced.”
“Here is the point on democracy that the Minister seems to miss. He acknowledges it would not be legally possible to seek to opt out of measures we have opted into and are legally required to implement. The difficulty is that democracy is not just about the ability of governments to make decisions; it is also about the ability of the people to kick governments out and allow other governments to make different decisions if that reflects their will. The Minister’s party and Fine Gael have locked us into provisions that no other Government can opt out of. The international protection system in this State is close to dysfunctional and riddled with problems. Fixing those problems does not require us to sign up to the EU migration and asylum pact.”
“Reflecting on the evidence the committee received, the report raised serious concerns about the ability of the State to meet the requirements it is signing up to under the EU pact, and noted that failures to adhere to the commitments under the pact could result in infringement proceedings and hefty fines. In other words, the Irish taxpayer could end up paying huge sums in EU fines for not adhering to the terms of a pact that there was no logical reason or obligation to sign up to in the first place. Sinn Féin has been clear from the outset that signing up wholesale to the EU migration and asylum pact is not in Ireland’s interest. We will continue to oppose moves that undermine Irish sovereignty and that hand over more powers to the EU, particularly when that impedes our ability to make decisions in respect of migration.”
“The pre-legislative scrutiny report on the Bill by the cross-party Oireachtas Committee on Justice, Home Affairs and Migration, which the Minister has alluded to, recommended that the Government reconsider opting out of the majority of the provisions of the EU migration and asylum pact. During its deliberations, the committee received numerous written and oral submissions on the Bill, coming from very different perspectives, but there was one point on which it seemed everyone agreed: there is no chance that the Government will be able to deliver on the obligations it has signed up to within the timeframe laid out in the legislation.”
“As the Minister has acknowledged, the primary purpose of the International Protection Bill is to provide for Ireland’s opting in to the EU migration and asylum pact. The State had an opt-out from that pact but Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael decided to discard it. They did that for narrow political reasons, so that they could say they had done something about immigration, when in fact all they have done is tie the hands of future Governments in making decisions in respect of immigration policy. It was an act of folly that has now been recognised by virtually everyone, except, of course, the Government itself.”
“We need to move beyond the simplistic argument that you are either pro-EU, and that means you support every single measure and proposal to cede sovereignty to the EU, or, as I would contend, you can be pro-EU but recognise there are consequences that have to be properly teased out. That is particularly the case in respect of areas where, under Protocol 21, we have opt-outs. Those opt-outs were secured for valid reasons and those reasons must be respected.”
“All of this reminds us that, even when we make decisions technically or theoretically for the right reasons, any time a decision is made to hand over and cede power to the European Union, that has implications. I fear that the discussions we have are not sufficiently robust or considered and we generally deal with motions that are rushed through the House. There are of course areas where co-operation or collective EU processes are the best and most effective approach. Passenger name recognition is one of those areas, which is why we will not be opposing this motion.”
“There will be other trade deals, some of which will be in Ireland's interests, and we will support them, while others may not be in our interests. The truth of the matter is that because we have ceded absolute control to a European framework which only provides for a qualified majority, there are likely to be instances where a deal is clearly not in the best interest of the Irish people and while an Irish Government may robustly oppose it, it will be implemented. For example, we know the EU is embarking on a free trade agreement with India. We do not know what the implications of that will be yet. There needs to be a full debate, which has not been the case in most respects.”
“More and more people are alive to the dangers inherent in ceding sovereignty as the practical implications become clear. We lost our veto over international trade deals as a result of the Lisbon treaty. We see now the impact of that with the Mercosur agreement, which is clearly not in Ireland's interests as a trade agreement. It poses serious threats to Irish agriculture, the environment and food safety standards, yet it appears we could be locked in if the European Court of Justice does not intervene. We see it with regard to the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement, CETA, which provides for an investor court system and exposes this State to the risk of being sued by foreign investors where State actions could be perceived as affecting negatively on their investments.”
“Individually, some of these matters might seem minor but the cumulative effect of a drift towards opting in to such measures is not always seen or understood by the public. There is no awareness that we are travelling in the direction of handing more and more powers over to the European Union, with little rationale in some instances. There is no discussion of the far-reaching implications of handing over increased powers in the areas of freedom, security and justice. There needs to be more concern about the ability of the people in this State to make decisions here in Ireland around matters in this area and less concern, in my view, about demonstrating our commitment to protecting and strengthening the EU's control over these areas.”
“It was for this reason, and of course to protect the common travel area, that Protocol 21 of the Lisbon treaty was put in place. There now needs to be a more comprehensive debate about where this State stands on the European Union and the areas described as freedom, security and justice. The regularity in which we faced opt-in motions and the comments of the Minister previously, following the review of Protocol 21 last year, suggest there is a move towards an ever greater ceding of sovereignty to the European Union in these areas. It would be useful if the Minister could outline, following the review, what measures Ireland is currently considering opting in to which we had previously opted out of.”
“These motions relate to a Council decision to sign and conclude an agreement between the EU and the Swiss Confederation. Sinn Féin is not opposing this motion. As we are here again to discuss an opt-in under Protocol 21, I want to make a number of general points on the matter. In standing up for the democratic will of the Irish people, the Oireachtas has a responsibility to be on guard at all times against anything that could potentially undermine our sovereignty. We also have to be on guard against attempts to undermine the protections which were crucial for Ireland signing up to treaties that involved further and deeper EU integration. Whenever the Irish people have voted on EU treaties, protecting and maximising Irish sovereignty have been to the fore of many people's concerns.”
“I thank the Minister for outlining the detail of these proposals. He is certainly keeping us busy this week. As I have said when we previously debated motions on the sharing of PNR data, this data is important for the prevention, detection, investigation and prosecution of serious crimes and terrorist offences, including drug-related offences and human trafficking. This information forms part of the broader management of our borders, although there are limitations to what the data can be used for. International co-operation in the fight against crime is crucial and the sharing of this information is a key aspect of that. I will put on the record again that the application of PNR data collection to ports and ferries needs to be examined, although I concede it will probably not be relevant to travel to Switzerland.”
“I am told, for example, that a Garda trainee was actually sacked last week, just ten days before their graduation, because they failed vetting. I do not know how serious the issue was in that regard, but I ask the Minister of State to confirm whether that is true and whether he would agree it is very serious. More importantly, will he outline what the Government plans to do about it?”
“The problems that are caused by Garda vetting delays to community organisations, sports clubs and childcare services, among others, have been well set out by Deputy Daly. People will agree that the most bizarre revelation has been that Garda vetting is actually affecting the gardaí themselves. The Minister confirmed to me today that some Garda recruits who were due to attest from Templemore next week will not be able to even start work, because, bizarrely, their Garda vetting has not been completed yet. That is crazy. The Minister said it is better to conduct the vetting in parallel to the training rather than delay someone starting. What happens if it turns out that somebody is going through training, having access to the Garda Training College and Garda stations and then ultimately fails the vetting process?”
“On one hand, the Government says English language schools are a tick-box exercise to allow people to get work permits. The Minister of State has indicated this evening that a number of people are securing stamp 2 visas, which are in effect precarious work visas. I think the Economic and Social Research Institute, ESRI, has confirmed that. However, levels of inspections are minimal and no school has been closed as a result of those assertions. The ESRI Asylum and Migration Overview 2024 that I mentioned was published just in December. It highlighted the example of Brazilian migration to Ireland in a study that illustrated the precarity and exploitation of Brazilians working in Ireland on stamp 2 visas. The author of that study argued that the stamp 2 visa, though a study visa in name, acted as a precarious work visa as well.”
“Have any education providers, as a result of inspections, been removed from the ILEP for failing to comply with immigration requirements?”
“The Minister of State's colleague, the Minister for further and higher education, Deputy James Lawless, told a media outlet at the end of last month that some English language schools were acting as tick-box exercises to allow people to get work permits. Is that an assertion the Minister of State agrees with? On what basis has that assertion been made? If other Ministers have been making similar assertions and that were the view of the Government, it would be incomprehensible that the Minister of State would stand over there being four inspections in a year. It is clear, based on the level of inspection of language schools, that it is nowhere near the number people would expect if the issue were as serious, or the Government were taking the issue as seriously, as suggested.”
“It has argued that the current unregulated system risks miscarriages of justice, violates the right of defendants to a fair trial and creates a potential scenario where people who are guilty of offences can find a route to being released on a technicality. Therefore, I have to ask again. Will the Minister ensure we put in place a system that can have public confidence?”
“Is the Minister seriously saying he will wait until there is a series of overturned convictions before he acts on what is clearly a gaping problem? He is right that the State pays a significant amount to companies under contracts for translation services, but the translators, it has to be said, are fairly poorly paid. I have to ask the Minister what checks are in place, through the Courts Service or An Garda Síochána, to ensure interpreting is of a good standard. Are there digital audio or video recordings? Are they checked independently? Best practice across the world, including in our nearest neighbours' country, is that regulations that can be upheld have been put in place. The Association of Translators and Interpreters Ireland has repeatedly called for the regulation of court interpreters in Ireland.”
“In a note from the Courts Service to the justice committee on this issue, the head of that service stated the court or any party to the case can request that the interpreter be replaced, but does the Minister accept the problem is that the person before the courts or their representative might not be in a position to identify the problem with the interpretation they are receiving? I take it the Minister is saying he has full confidence in the system as it stands.”
“The Minister referenced a 2021 case. The Court of Appeal found "serious, and potentially far-reaching, inaccuracies" in that case. The interpreter in that case had assisted in more than 240 other cases that had been before the courts. After that judgment the interpreter continued to work in that role for another 40 cases. I find it hard to believe the Minister does not accept this case highlights that having no regulation - no competency tests - in respect of interpretation can potentially undermine our justice system. It is not just about the right to a fair trial and to have an interpreter, which is important, but it is also about the very real potential that a failing in this regard could result in an actual criminal managing to overturn a conviction.”
“Many people will be surprised to learn that there is no set quality or standard in respect to interpretation and translation in legal proceedings in this State. Many would argue it is undermining our criminal justice system. Is it the Minister's intention to bring forward legislation or regulations on the use of language interpreters in court?”
“To give one example, the Minister of State, Deputy Butler, and I had an interaction in respect of the acute mental health unit in Cavan hospital. The long-promised psychiatric unit at the hospital is needed for the entire region. I have a multitude of responses on this from both the Minister of State and her predecessors and what do they amount to is "Wait until next year". This year, in January 2026, the Minister of State tells me again to wait. This is not about me or the Minister of State; it is about the people who depend on that service. Mental Health Commission reports have pointed out the unit requires an entirely new build above ground level. I ask the Minister of State to stop forcing people to wait and deliver the mental health services they actually need right now.”
“If I were to sum up Government responses to the multitude of questions it receives from Sinn Féin and other Deputies in the House in respect of mental health, the response could be summarised as "Wait until next year". That seems to be the answer I get to any question I put. It is shameful that we have to bring forward a motion in respect of people presenting at emergency rooms in a mental health crisis. This indicates that there is a crisis across the mental health spectrum, despite absolutely brilliant work being done by people in CAMHS and the mental health services. The truth of the matter is there are not enough of staff and they are not provided with the services they need. That says to me, very clearly, that mental health services are simply not being prioritised by Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael in Government.”
“While there are many priorities in the Department of Justice, Home Affairs and Migration and lots of legislation is indicated for priority, I believe there needs to be urgency with regard to this particular Bill. It is a straightforward change. It adds the creation and generation of images to the crimes of distributing and sharing those images. I hope all TDs will support the Bill's quick passage through the Dáil. I commend it to the House.”
“There is a sense that many of these platforms believe they are above the law. X initially did not disable Grok's nudification tool. Instead, it placed it behind a paywall, cynically monetising this horrific functionality. Coimisiún na Meán has a job to do when it comes to regulating social media companies operating in this State and ensuring they abide by the law. Laws in relation to AI must be robust to protect the public. Ireland’s AI Advisory Council has recommended a specific offence for creating deepfakes without consent in addition to further stand-alone legislation. This Bill seeks to amend Coco's Law to criminalise the generation of non-consensual intimate images and videos and increase the maximum penalties on conviction.”
“X's nudification tool meant that users were able to upload photos or videos of real people and then Grok could remove their clothing, generating and posting these files to the platform for its estimated 650 million monthly active users to view and save. Some 99% of the sexualised AI images and videos produced targeted women and children. Experts at the Sexual Exploitation Research and Policy Institute estimate that 6,700 sexually abusive images, including of children, were being produced every hour. The Garda National Cyber Crime Bureau is conducting an ongoing investigation into 200 child sexual abuse images generated by Grok. Those impacted did not give consent for this but fake depictions of them in degrading or humiliating scenarios were created and published through Grok and released publicly.”
“It is not clear in stating that the generation, for example, of a deepfake sexual image of an adult is illegal. There was some discussion in previous legislative debates of deepfakes and the legislation makes reference to an image which purports to be images of intimate body parts, but the law must keep up with technological developments. The failure to give certainty in law that the creation of such imagery is outlawed is a flaw and it has to be fixed without delay. Over recent weeks, we have seen that this real gap in the law has been exploited by companies such as X and its AI tool, Grok. There has been widespread revulsion at the fact that platforms have allowed the nudification of images, primarily of women and children.”
“It legislates against the recording, distribution and publication of intimate images. The Act created a criminal offence under which perpetrators can be prosecuted for intimate image sharing and grossly offensive communications offences. A review of the Act carried out in 2024 showed there had been 100 cases prosecuted by the Director of Public Prosecutions between 2021 and 2023. The review also found there had been 1,500 victim reports made in the same time. There is clearly a significant gap between the reports made to the hotline and, ultimately, to prosecutions. Unquestionably, having the law in place acts as a deterrent against the sharing, recording, distribution and publication of intimate images. However, there is a lack of certainty regarding whether the 2020 Act covers the generation or creation of intimate images.”
“I move: That leave be granted to introduce a Bill entitled an Act to amend the Harassment, Harmful Communications and Related Offences Bill 2020 to prohibit the creation of non-consensual intimate or harmful imagery; and to increase the timeframe under which summary proceedings for an offence may be instituted. I welcome Margaret Loftus to the House. On behalf of Deputy Máire Devine and myself, I am pleased to introduce this Bill. Unfortunately, Deputy Devine, who is Sinn Féin’s spokesperson on equality, domestic and gender-based violence, cannot be here today but she has been incredibly vocal on this issue. I commend her on her work with me on this legislation. The Harassment, Harmful Communications and Related Offences Act 2020 is also known as Coco’s Law.”
“More generally, I put on record that I hope the Minister will very speedily enact the other recommendations of that report. I will leave that for now.”
“Finally, I want to address the fact that this Bill amends the Schedule to the Bail Act 1997. It adds the offences of coercive control and forced marriage, in both cases under the Domestic Violence Act 2018, to the Schedule to the Bail Act. Many people will be disappointed by the fact that this does not add section 33 of the Domestic Violence Act, which relates to breaches of domestic violence court orders, to the Schedule. While to do this would require the maximum penalty on conviction to be raised to five years, this could and should have been done as well because it is something that has been raised with me by those in the legal profession working in the field. It is also one of the recommendations in the report prepared by Lorcan Staines SC and published in November.”
“I welcome that because the Government and successive governments have been far too slow in dealing with this issue. Concerns have been raised for years and we know some landlords have been exploiting vulnerable tenants. It is two and a half years since the Sinn Féin spokesperson on housing, Deputy Ó Broin, introduced a Bill that would ban sex for rent. The issue should have been dealt with before now. Likewise, I welcome the announcement that at some point during the process, and I hope it is early so that we have time to properly scrutinise it, a disregard will be allowed of historical convictions relating to same-sex activity. I welcome that. I commend my colleague, Deputy Ó Snodaigh, who has long campaigned for legislation on this. Again, I ask for it to be done as quickly as possible.”
“The inspector highlighted that at the start of this year there were 5,761 people in Irish prisons, which have a capacity of 4,718. That is an increase in 700 in the last 12 months and means we now have over 600 people sleeping on mattresses in Irish prisons. That means our prisons are not able to function as we want them to. This is on the Minister's watch and it is on the Government's watch. Rather than dealing with the serious overcrowding crisis which is making the conditions in prisons more dangerous for staff and prisoners alike, we are having this proposal instead. I have not been at all convinced that the introduction of a weapon into our prisons is the answer to the overcrowding crisis. The Bill also deals with the issue of sex for rent.”
“Again, I appeal to the Minister to listen and to bring forward or accept amendments on Committee Stage to provide for a complete ban on the disclosure of counselling notes. There are a number of other issues which I want to touch on briefly before concluding. The pre-legislative report from our committee had serious reservations in respect of the use of incapacitant spray in prisons and recommended that this proposal be dropped. Again, it appears we have not been listened to on this. I encourage anybody with an interest in this area to read or watch back the testimony of the Inspector of Prisons to the justice committee. He indicated that after more than 30 years of inspecting prisons across 46 member states of the Council of Europe, the current conditions for some people living in Irish prisons were among the worst he had seen.”
“Certainly, I do not think it would be possible for anyone who has not been through that process to fully understand what that means for victims and survivors. When they tell us that counselling saved their lives but they would not do it again if they knew their personal thoughts, worries and trauma would be handed over to the perpetrators, we have to listen. More importantly, we have to act. For those victims and survivors who are campaigning for a ban on the disclosure of counselling notes, some of whom are here in the Gallery today, the real truth is that this will not help them personally. They have been through the process. They have suffered the trauma. They are doing this and are here pleading with us not on their own behalf but on behalf of others. They are asking us to act and they must be commended on that.”
“That is widely acknowledged and therefore we need to address this issue as the legislation progresses. Court delays, which are a particular problem in sexual violence cases, mean that the process can drag on for years. We know that far too few cases of rape and sexual assault actually result in a successful prosecution. Many crimes of this nature - probably most of them - are not even reported. If we have a hostile justice system, which is what victims and survivors see when they hear about the disclosure of notes, it does not encourage us having a justice system that works. The disclosure of counselling notes compounds that trauma in a way that is very hard for any lay person to understand.”
“The committee listened and in our report we collectively called on the Minister to support a complete ban. The reality is that we all know it is wrong and unacceptable to add to the trauma of victims and survivors. While of course everyone accepts that we must protect the right to a fair trial in all cases, we have a duty to victims and survivors that must be put at the heart of how our system works. In all of the evidence our committee received and in all of the public discourse I have yet to come across a single case where divulging counselling notes was warranted in order to receive a fair trial. We deal with making the law here but victims and survivors are living with the impact of the laws we make. The legal process, we are told, is traumatising victims and survivors.”