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 16 of 30.
“They have to deal with the impact of knowing the perpetrator can read their personal thoughts and feelings about what happened to them - not only their personal thoughts and feelings but the interpretation of those thoughts and feelings by a third party, namely, a counsellor. There is an impact on victims of having to hand over years of notes, and continuing to have to do so, while cases drag on if they continue to attend counselling. We heard very starkly that people now make a decision on whether to attend counselling or to pursue legal recourse. The submissions and evidence emphasised to committee members across all parties both how crucial counselling is to surviving and how the reality of allowing the disclosure of counselling notes actually impacts on victims.”
“I thank them and all the others who told us their intimate, personal stories, so that, as legislators, we could understand the reality of what happens in our courts, not just the theory of the disclosure of counselling notes that are sought when they could have a relevant evidential value crucial to a fair trial, but the reality that disclosure is now considered the norm by defence teams. The reality is that rape victims who have taken the stand are being asked about unrelated and irrelevant matters, which they had discussed in intimate and deeply personal conversations with their counsellor.”
“When the justice committee considered this Bill during the pre-legislative scrutiny process, there was cross-party support in one instance and quite an amount of deliberation in respect of the calls for a complete and unconditional ban on the use of counselling records in sexual offence trials. Crucial to the committee reaching that decision was listening directly to what victims and survivors said to us. Survivors strongly asserted that this practice is deeply traumatising, causes severe psychological harm and that it heightens suicide risk. That is the evidence that was brought directly to our committee. Notably, professional mental health bodies have also called for an end to this practice. I commend all of those who have told their stories. I will single out just a couple of people - Hazel Behan and Paula Doyle.”
“Miscellaneous Bills should be used for limited and technical changes rather than a large range of complex issues, which in reality - as we saw during the PLS process - means there is not adequate time to fully scrutinise individual unrelated measures. This is particularly the case with this Bill, which deals with issues as diverse as the use of counselling notes in sexual violence trials; the use of incapacitant sprays in prisons; remote hearings in courts, outdoor seating for pubs and restaurants, and banning sex for rent. Given the limited time we have here this evening, I will not be able to deal with all of those issues comprehensively but there are a number of things on which I want to focus.”
“I welcome the opportunity to speak on this Bill, on which, as the Minister says, the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Justice, Home Affairs and Migration completed pre-legislative scrutiny in the latter part of last year. Úsáidfidh mé mo chuid ama den chuid is mó chun labhairt faoin ngá atá le deireadh a chur le húsáid nótaí comhairleoireachta i dtrialacha foréigin ghnéasaigh. During the pre-legislative scrutiny process and again today I have repeatedly made the point that the approach of the Department and the Minister of including such a wide range of unrelated, diverse and, in themselves sometimes very important, matters within a single miscellaneous Bill is less than ideal.”
“She believes that a new acute mental health service at Cavan hospital - a stand-alone facility above ground level, which should not be too much to ask - must be delivered as quickly as possible. The Minister of State can cite all the other failures in other parts of the country, but I and the people of Cavan and Monaghan and beyond need to know whether this is a commitment and a priority. When will it actually be delivered?”
“I will explain what I do not understand. I have a letter from the HSE, dated last July, which states that the HSE capital plan includes this provision and that the HSE is looking at appointing the design team. Has that happened or not? Is the Minister of State saying that the last year has basically been wasted in terms of moving this project forward? Will there now be a new appraisal of whether this project enters the capital plan at all? Along with Senator Tully, I recently met the mother of a young man who spent time in this unit in Cavan hospital and tragically, very shortly after leaving, he died by suicide. It was a very tragic case. This woman has made it her life's mission to ensure that future young people get a better service than she feels her son did.”
“I am a bit taken aback, to be quite honest. The Government and the HSE have given a commitment that there will be a new acute mental health unit - a psychiatric unit - on the grounds of Cavan hospital. Previously, a date of 2030 had been provided. I hoped that the Minister of State would be able to announce today that the preliminary processes had been advanced so that we could reach that. The Minister of State will know that previous Mental Health Commission reports in respect of this unit have been quite damning. That is no reflection on the staff within the ward who I am sure do a huge amount of work. However, this is a unit that is on the lower ground floor, which says all we need to know, essentially, about how mental health has been treated up to this point. I ask the Minister of State to ensure that greater clarity is given.”
“I ask the Minister of State to give us an update on the status of the new acute mental health unit at Cavan hospital and, more importantly, the timeframe in which the unit will be completed and delivered.”
“The failure to regulate the sale of nitrous oxide before now has allowed a new market to be developed, where it is being used as a recreational drug, particularly by young people. We have to take action now. The first step must be the passage of this Bill tonight.”
“The reality is very different, however. Nitrous oxide cuts off oxygen to the brain. Those who have treated young people who have ended up in hospital as a result of misusing this product have raised serious concerns. Inhalation often makes users feel light-headed. It can cause headaches and loss of consciousness. In certain cases, its use can trigger serious side-effects, including spinal cord damage. Across Europe, nitrous oxide has been linked to numerous road collisions and yet, unlike alcohol and other drugs, it is not tested for. This needs to be addressed as a matter of urgency. This is a growing problem, particularly now, with the involvement of organised crime. Revenue and customs have said that more than 1,000 large canisters are being seized at ports every week. These are being brought into the State by organised criminal gangs.”
“Unfortunately, the misuse of nitrous oxide has become more commonplace across the State. It is clear that young people are using it because it is cheaper than alcohol and because it is readily available. This House has to listen to the people in the field. Sometimes we do things with the best intentions only for them to have other impacts. Ciara Murphy, project leader at the Finglas youth service, highlighted to "Prime Time" how the price of alcohol is driving the use of nitrous oxide. She basically said that young people at parties may not be drinking because alcohol is expensive and so they choose nitrous oxide to get their buzz. We have to listen to voices like hers. Many of the young people who are using this product do not have an awareness of the potential dangers. Many think it is a harmless activity.”
“Molaim mo chomhghleacaí, an Teachta Mark Ward, as a chuid obair feachtasaíochta ar an gceist seo. Deputy Ward deserves huge credit for the work he has done not only in bringing forward this legislation but in setting out the issues around nitrous oxide for this House. We know it has legitimate uses in the medical and catering sectors but it is clear that its sale must be regulated in the interests of public health. That case has been made very strongly. Given what has been said by gardaí, customs officials, youth workers and medical practitioners, it is incredible that the Government is seeking to delay this Bill. It is important to say that this Bill will not criminalise young people for simple possession of nitrous oxide. However, it will give gardaí the power to seize canisters from those without appropriate licences.”
“They are asking themselves what they are getting for all of this, if they cannot even drive to their local school without risking bursting the suspension on their car. I know the Minister cannot give the precise figures. Will there be a substantial increase in road funding so we can ensure that the programme for road maintenance and restoration will be accelerated in the coming months and years?”
“No, but here is the difficulty. I have visited roads, including one that is close to the town of Ballybay and one close to Castleblayney, in recent weeks. The roads are in a terrible condition. From dealing with the local authority, the best it can do in the short term is patching work, which in many ways is economically crazy but it has to be done. The best-case scenario under the current trajectory is that it could take five or even six years before those roads will be properly restored. Here is the frustration of people in those areas: they have seen their cost of insurance increase; they are paying their road tax; they have seen the cost of petrol and diesel being increased by the Government on an annual basis; and, for those who have to travel to Dublin or elsewhere, their toll charges have increased.”
“Well over €400,000 of that - it was actually closer to €500,000 in Monaghan - had to be spent on speed limit signs because of the new speed limits. The situation is that more roads are in need of urgent repair than ever before. The Minister said he cannot give the actual figures. Will there be a substantial increase in the 2026 allocations?”
“I agree with the Minister on two fronts. Local authority staff in Cavan and Monaghan are doing a huge amount of work and are getting efficient use out of the funding that is allocated in terms of the road programme. The second area is that councillors across all political parties and all local Oireachtas Members agree that the funding in place is nowhere near sufficient in order to deal with the issues. There are a number of different problems. The road network deteriorated as a result of cutbacks following the financial crash and costs have increased substantially. The increases we have seen, even in recent years, come nowhere close to addressing that. In Monaghan, for example, in real terms, the extra allocation was about €1 million last year vis-à-vis the two years in terms of actual funding provided.”
“I have been in elected politics a long time and I have to say that the state of local roads generally has never been as bad in all of my time. It is evident not enough funding is being provided to local authorities. Will the Minister indicate how much funding was allocated to local authorities in my area, Cavan and Monaghan county councils, last year? What is the proposed allocation for 2026?”
“We have had this dismal failure to answer the question that cannot actually be answered: how can you supplant beef, poultry and other products that are produced to the highest standards in the world, and replace them with beef coming from the far end of the world that is being produced at the cost of the rainforests? It says a lot about the Government Members of this House. A former Member of this House, Eamon Ryan, tells us today that we should support this deal, all the while knowing that what they are actually doing, economically, environmentally and from an agriculture perspective, is absolute madness.”
“Fine Gael tried and failed to block a Sinn Féin motion in this House in 2019 mandating it to call “Stop.” We even had Phil Hogan, the then Commissioner, telling Irish farmers at one stage that beef was off the table in the Mercosur talks, which was an attempt to dampen down opposition. In 2017, after I was at a private meeting in the European Parliament when the European Commission confirmed that beef was very much central to this, I called on the Government to stop the deal. Sinn Féin representatives in every single year since have been urging the Government to stop this deal. Rather than heeding those calls, the Government played an absolutely obscene game of duplicity, pretending to farmers that it was opposed to this European trade deal with the Mercosur states, and at the same time doing nothing to bring it to an end.”
“The ratification of the Mercosur trade deal represents the greatest failure of an Irish Government to protect Irish family farmers since we joined the EEC. It is a betrayal of Irish agriculture comparable to what the Common Fisheries Policy was to our fishing community. The roots of this betrayal, which is what it is, go way beyond the last week or so. The roots lie, in the first instance, in an Irish Government agreeing to a negotiating mandate at a European level. They lie in the Lisbon Treaty, which removed the ability of small states like Ireland to protect our interests in trade negotiations. Over the past decades, Sinn Féin has repeatedly called on the Government to stop this deal at times when it could have been stopped. Instead, we got deflection.”
“Okay. The one that is closest to passage at the moment is the Defamation (Amendment) Bill 2024, which the Minister does not agree with. There are over 30 justice and migration Bills on the legislative schedule. Announcements of Bills, as I said, are being made every other week but we have not got beyond the announcements, soundbites and press conferences to see real action in terms of legislative changes. In this final day before we break for the Christmas recess, I wish to say to the Minister that we are up for working with him to bring forward the type of changes that are required to ensure we have a policing system that works and serves our communities and a migration system that works and serves our society. We need to stop the play-acting and press conferences and move towards real action.”
“While this Bill was published by the Minister just a week ago, it is the fourth Bill he has published since he has taken office. A lot of people would be surprised by that because virtually every time the Minister gets out of bed it seems he is announcing new legislation. Quite a number of people would be surprised to learn that, in the course of 2025, not a single piece of justice legislation has passed through the Houses.”
“With regard to the provisions in the Bill on the carrying out of biometric analysis by Garda personnel, there needs to be a strengthening of the provisions that authorise the use of the result of biometric analysis. Section 6 of Part 2 currently states that: "The results of biometric analysis shall not be used by An Garda Síochána for a principal purpose unless...results have been reviewed by a member of Garda personnel and have been ascertained by him or her to be of sufficient reliability to be so used." I argue that provisions as to who authorises the use of the technology should be strengthened to reflect the reality of its use. We will be engaging with this process through further Stages of its passage. We look forward to its passage, if its passage comes anytime in the short term.”
“We also know that a significant number - albeit a minority - of gardaí faced disciplinary procedures for the misuse of the PULSE system in the past, including the horrendous case in which a former garda was jailed in July for inciting strangers to rape a colleague. That individual pleaded guilty to the unauthorised disclosure of Garda PULSE personal data on 14 individuals. While it is important to say that these misuses related to a very small minority within An Garda Síochána, the experience of that misuse of PULSE reinforces the need to ensure proper protections are in place to ensure these technologies are only used where appropriate, properly authorised and necessary for the investigation of serious crimes.”
“How will An Garda Síochána mitigate the risks of discrimination, profiling or rights violations that has been shown to arise in other states from the use of these technologies? Of course, the public will also need assurances around any companies providing services in respect of these technologies and the protection of data when using private companies. There needs to be an absolute guarantee that the State will not be using the services of Israeli-based companies for the provision of these services. I would go as far as to say any existing contracts that An Garda Síochána has with Israeli companies providing surveillance technology should be terminated.”
“While the Bill sets out the broad parameters for the introduction of a code of practice, it would be much more preferable if the specifics parameters, in terms of the use of the technology, were contained within the Bill. That would allow us the opportunity to scrutinise them to ensure they are sufficiently robust to protect the rights to privacy and to protect against misuse. I do not know if the Minister will have an opportunity to answer at the end but I will put a number of questions to him. What is the reason for referring to this process as “biometric analysis” instead of what is called “biometric categorisation” in the AI Act? Why is there no reference to the AI Act? What are the specific circumstances when this categorisation will take place and when the individual will be tracked?”
“The AIAC noted that when used in a law enforcement context, facial recognition technology is a high-risk technology given the potential consequences of its use for individuals. It recommended that “given the limitations of current evaluations, the AIAC advises against procuring or deploying FRT until satisfactory independent evaluations are conducted under real-world conditions relevant to Irish law enforcement." It is not clear to me reading this Bill that the Minister has taken on board those important points made the by AI Advisory Council in relation to the use of these technologies by the gardaí, particularly in cases where it is to be used and the safeguards around approval for deployment.”
“It is right that it is only used where it is necessary and proportionate. It is important that this is done in a manner that does not lead to excessive surveillance and undermining the right to privacy. We just do not want to drift into a surveillance society. Reviews have to examine the deployment and the accuracy of the technology. Roll out across the State should only follow a pilot phase that examines issues in relation to accuracy, which is very important, but also the impact on the right to privacy. There are risks inherent in giving gardaí additional powers in relation to these kinds of technologies. In June 2024, as the Minister will know, a subgroup of the Artificial Intelligence Advisory Council, AIAC, on biometrics in the public service in Ireland issued an advice paper to Government on FRT use by An Garda Síochána.”
“We recognise the potential role that it can play in terms of the increased amount of evidence, including CCTV, which gardaí must go through in the investigation of crimes and the fact that some of this is physically not possible to do manually in the way in which it can be done through this technology. However, the use of this technology in no way replaces the need to tackle issues with garda numbers I have mentioned and to ensure we have enough gardaí in our communities to keep them safe, build relationships with communities, police our roads and prevent and investigate crime. There needs to be a recognition of the benefits and the risks of enabling the Garda to use biometric recognition technologies. The Dáil must be satisfied in terms of the limitations and safeguards that are put in place regarding how this technology is used.”
“It will allow gardaí to recognise and categorise the general public based on their biometric data; locate and track unidentified individuals across images or pieces of footage, based again on their biometric data in order to reconstruct their movements; and search for and locate a known person, across multiple images or pieces of footage, based on their biometric data, to determine their whereabouts. I want to be clear. Sinn Féin believes that biometric recognition technologies have a place in enabling the gardaí to do their jobs, particularly in the investigation of serious crimes but we also believe its introduction has to be approached with real caution.”
“Already, questions have been raised. One of those is why the Bill refers to "biometric analysis" when what is referred to is essentially what is termed "biometric categorisation" in the AI Act. The lack of any reference to the AI Act also raises concerns. The Bill is seeking to give gardaí powers to apply an algorithm to any imagery or video footage obtained during investigations in order to find people and categorise them by their biometric data.”
“The Garda Síochána (Recording Devices) (Amendment) Bill, which we are dealing with today, seeks to allow for the use of biometric recognition technologies as a tool to process evidence in serious criminal investigations, matters relating to State security, and for missing persons cases. It differs in a number of aspects from the general scheme, or heads of Bill, which were previously subject to pre-legislative scrutiny. I note that many of the concerns raised during pre-legislative scrutiny do not appear to have been addressed in this Bill. The short timeframe between publication and the Second Stage debate is not ideal, nor is it ideal to be discussing a Bill with potentially far-reaching repercussions on the last day of the Dáil. It feels like this Bill has been rushed in order to get it to the Dáil before the end of the year.”
“I take this opportunity to wish the Ceann Comhairle and all of the staff in the Houses of the Oireachtas, and even the Minister and his staff, a very happy Christmas and all the best for the new year. Cuirim fáilte roimh an deis labhairt faoin Bhille. Tá buntáistí agus rioscaí ag baint leis an méid atá fógartha. Ní mór dúinn an Bille seo a scrúdú go cúramach. An Garda Síochána has a challenging job to do. That job has been made much more difficult in recent years by the failure to tackle the recruitment and retention crisis. There are simply not enough community gardaí. There are not enough roads policing gardaí. There has been a growing reliance on overtime for the carrying out of routine police work. This crisis has to be tackled and, as the Minister knows, Sinn Féin has set out proposals on what we believe needs to be done.”
“Will the Minister of State take a hands-on approach? Rather than just taking the word of Re-Turn or Repak, will he ensure his Department is fully across every single detail and is not allowing something that is penalising Irish consumers or potentially putting Irish companies at risk by the actions that Re-Turn might be taking?”
“The lack of information and movement coming from the Department in this respect are completely unacceptable. The Government was quick to impose this charge on consumers but it has refused point blank to impose a charge on the use of virgin plastic, for example, something that would put a burden on the companies that are using virgin plastic, which is non-recyclable plastic. There are companies in this country that have the ability to recycle this product but Re-Turn sells the plastic to the highest bidder, regardless of the purpose or country. It means that people who are thinking they are doing the right thing recycling their plastic bottles can see their product going half way across the world in a way that no one could describe as being environmentally responsible. I will ask the question again.”
“This is not helped by the fact that almost 70% of the plastic that is collected is exported to third countries, despite the fact that we have companies in Ireland, such as Shabra Plastics and Packaging Limited in my constituency, that have the capacity to recycle this product. Will the Minister of State take a hands-on approach to ensure that we increase significantly and substantially the amount of plastic that is recycled in this State under this scheme?”
“The deposit return scheme means that ordinary people are charged an additional cost every time they buy a plastic bottle and then they have to go to what is often a huge inconvenience of gathering the bottles to retrieve their deposit. There have been a lot of unforeseen consequences. For example, people's household waste charges have increased because domestic collectors are not, as was previously the case, receiving plastic bottles when collecting waste. With schemes such as this, we need to be careful that consumers and the general population do not see this as a burden rather than a mechanism to increase recycling and improve the circular economy.”
“I have raised on a number of occasions issues relating to rPET plastic recycling in this State. With the introduction of the return scheme, which imposes a deposit charge on consumers every time they buy a plastic bottle that they then need to recoup, we need to ensure there is full transparency when it comes to all plastic that is collected under the scheme. Will the Minister of State detail the statistics relating to the number of rPET pellets that are recycled and produced in this State?”
“Will she confirm that she will actively pursue keeping Rainbow Lodge open, even post the second and permanent respite centre being in place?”
“The Minister of State said Rainbow Lodge is contingent on funding. She is the one who provides the funding. Has she allocated sufficient funding for Rainbow Lodge to operate throughout 2026? Second, Annalee View is a respite centre that operates one week for adults and one week for children. The truth of the matter is that there is a deficiency in respite places. As the Minister of State outlined, it can be a lengthy process to provide new respite services. If we have a respite centre that is up and running, and operating well, which the users love and the families think is a great service, it would be illogical to close it down. I contend that if it is closed down, at some point in the future, another Minister will have to start the process all over again. Will the Minister of State confirm that the funding is in place for 2026?”
“It is incredibly popular with users and a huge relief to the families who have benefited from it. It would make sense to maintain both respite centres into the future.”
“I welcome that progress is being made on a permanent respite centre for children in Monaghan. However, I am deeply concerned by what the Minister of State referenced in relation to Rainbow Lodge, which is an interim measure. The Minister of State indicated that its future is contingent on funding. It would be completely unacceptable if Rainbow Lodge were closed before the permanent centre opened. I appeal to the Minister of State to take a hands-on approach to this. Even the new centre with five bedrooms is going to be at or above capacity on day one. I suggest it would make eminent sense for the HSE and the Department to ensure that Rainbow Lodge is maintained as a respite centre, even beyond the construction and completion of the new centre. There is huge demand for respite services. Rainbow Lodge is operating well.”
“The Minister of State may be aware that until last year, Monaghan had no respite facilities for children at all. The services it has currently are incredibly stretched. I ask the Minister of State to outline the proposals to provide additional respite capacity for both adults and children with disabilities in County Monaghan.”
“This is linked to national hunt racing, and also to the wider sense of alienation felt across rural communities. It may well be the case that it is possible to secure a ban without any of the engagement I refer to, but that would not be the best approach. That trajectory would deepen division and mistrust, which we have seen all over the world. I do not believe this is in the best interest of animal welfare, social cohesion or the working people of Ireland, rural or urban.”
“We will not earn the trust of people unless we are willing to listen and recognise the legitimacy of different lived experiences. Yes, there are people who are very passionate on both sides of this debate. There are also people asking why, in the week before Christmas, at a time of severe and unrelenting pressure from the cost-of-living crisis and a housing crisis out of control, we are dealing with such a divisive issue in this way. Putting that aside, I agree we have to be open to debate on this issue. I am open to discussion and willing to listen to those who disagree with me profoundly. I ask proponents of this Bill to do the same and to listen to people who speak about rural tradition, wildlife management and the social and economic role of hunting in their communities.”
“What they have expressed is a broader concern that we cannot dismiss. If we do, we do so at our peril. Their concern is that this debate is part of a wider pattern in which rural life is increasingly viewed with suspicion or hostility. They see opposition not just to hunting but also to other rural pursuits, and in this regard they refer to farming, one-off housing and the social fabric of their communities. Whether Members agree with that assessment or not, it cannot be ignored. Sinn Féin is a party of working people, urban and rural alike. We engage with concerns from those communities respectfully and honestly. We cannot build a fairer or united Ireland without the working people of rural communities, just as we cannot do so without the working people of urban communities.”
“The suggestion that anyone voting against this Bill is simply pandering to a wealthy, powerful colonial lobby is fanciful. I have been lobbied on this issue by people on each side of the debate. I have engaged with many animal welfare advocates who are passionate and want Sinn Féin to support this Bill. The people I engaged with were sincere, informed and respectful, and I respect that. I am happy to and will continue to engage with them. I was contacted by many people from my constituency, which is also that of the Chair. These were ordinary, hard-working men and women – people involved in farming, game clubs and local community organisations – and they certainly were not wealthy or powerful. In fact, and this is sometimes lost in this debate, most of them are not involved in fox hunting at all.”
“It is a reality that many people, particularly in rural communities, feel increasingly alienated by the tone of this discussion. From an animal welfare perspective, I believe the approach is absolutely counterproductive. From a wider political and social perspective, it is damaging. Those of us in this House who are serious about building a progressive-left republican alternative in this country must also be serious about unity, common citizenship, mutual respect, and shared ownership and stewardship of our land. That requires building solidarity between rural and urban working people, not driving wedges between them. We have seen internationally what happens when rural working-class communities feel dismissed or talked down to. They disengage and retreat. That does not serve animal welfare, social justice or progressive politics.”
“On each occasion, our members have reached the same conclusion, that rural activities involving animals should be strongly regulated rather than banned outright, and that effective regulation requires serious, constructive engagement with all stakeholders, including animal welfare organisations and those involved in these activities. That is a policy that I support. I do so without any personal or vested interest. I am not a hunter or horse owner. I have never attended a fox hunt and I have no intention of doing so. The manner in which this debate is conducted matters. The vilification of people who engage in the activities in question or who oppose this Bill is the wrong approach. It does not encourage understanding or debate. In fact, it shuts it down and ignores the reality.”