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 17 of 30.
“I will be voting against this Bill, in line with Sinn Féin policy. I have heard the calls for a free vote but I remind people that Sinn Féin is a member-led, activist-based party. Our positions are determined democratically by our members at our Ard-Fheis. I suspect that if this were a different issue, or if Sinn Féin had a different position, those calling for a free vote now would take a very different view. As has been said, this issue has come up at successive Sinn Féin Ard-Fheiseanna and has been debated at length, often robustly.”
“As a result of those meetings, if they took place, are there any new measures that the Minister now plans to bring forward?”
“The difficulty is that the Minister's speech reflects, virtually verbatim, what we heard this time last year from the then Minister. There is no issue with applications or expressions of interest. We have seen that time and again. People are interested in the prospect of joining the Defence Forces. The difficulty is bringing them to the point when they are inducted and ensuring they are retained within the Defence Forces. Across the board, the Government does not have the ambition at the start or the policies at the end. The difficulty is that the members of the Defence Forces have been telling us all, and specifically the Government, the measures that are required to actually address the retention and recruitment crisis we have been facing. Has the Minister met with the Defence Forces' representative organisations?”
“Perhaps she could inform the Dáil how many discharges she expects within the Defence Forces this year because on average, it is approximately 750. Is she telling us that at the end of this year, we are effectively going to have no increase in the numbers of personnel in the Defence Forces?”
“We use the term "level of ambition" about the future of the Defence Forces. However, the level of ambition from the Government is absolutely pathetic considering where we are starting from and the situation we have as a result of Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael mismanagement. In December 2019, just prior to Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael coming together in the previous Government, the number of personnel in the Defence Forces was 8,700. We are supposed to celebrate that numbers are now a little over 7,700. There are 1,000 fewer personnel. This is at a time when the Government is planning to abandon the triple lock to send our Defence Forces to places it will not yet stipulate. The Minister tells us that we will have 750 inductions at best this year.”
“I would appreciate it if the Minister would inform the Dáil of the current numbers of personnel within each service of the Defence Forces, the current establishment figure and the number that will be required to meet level of ambition 2 under the commission on the future of the Defence Forces.”
“As a matter of urgency, will the Government see if an intervention can be made to explore whether there is any possible avenue to save The Northern Standard ?”
“The people of County Monaghan received a huge shock this morning with the news that The Northern Standard newspaper, which has been a Monaghan institution for 186 years, is set to close. For generations, The Northern Standard has been a trusted local voice with top-class local journalists, photographers and other staff. It has chronicled every significant event in our community life. It has held to account those of us in political life. Its closure would be a huge loss and it creates real concern about historical records and contemporary reporting. Of course, the disappearance of an historic paper such as The Northern Standard is part of a much wider pattern. Does the Government intend to bring forward any legislation or other supports for local and regional media?”
“I am asking the Minister to finally get it and get live to the fact that people are going through really tough times and, rather than a kick in the teeth from Government, they need a little bit of support. What they need above all is that the supports currently in place are not removed. He did not answer my question directly, so I will ask him again. Please will he give assurance to those people who rely on blister packs that the Government will not impose these charges in January? Will it finally hear the cries coming into all of our constituency offices for a little bit of understanding on the part of this out-of-touch Government?”
“The Minister talks about spelling it out. I will spell it out for him again. People are struggling with a cost-of-living crisis and the Government does not get that. People with disabilities or care needs are particularly struggling and the Government does not get that. The way we know it does not get that is because there are vulnerable people who need blister packs to get by in their day-to-day lives and to have some semblance of independence. Currently they get those blister packs free of charge and this Scrooge-like Government through its Scrooge-like Minister is going to charge them €20, €30, maybe even €50 per month come the new year.”
“He warned that narrowing supports for monitoring dosage systems would expose vulnerable patients to new charges but those warnings were ignored. We now have a decision by a Fine Gael Minister that will increase costs for vulnerable patients, undermine medication adherence, overwhelm carers and potentially lead to avoidable GP visits and hospital admissions. It is a decision that pharmacists, carers and front-line workers say is a false economy. I will put some clear questions to the Minister. Why is blister pack support being removed without any impact assessment, consultation or plan for those who depend on it? Why were warnings from pharmacists, carers and Sinn Féin ignored? Will the Government now act immediately to reverse this decision and protect vulnerable patients from real harm?”
“Today, the CSO announced a rise in annual inflation that is almost twice the rate projected by Government. When people are told that blister packs may now cost €20, €30 or even €50 a month, they simply cannot absorb it. The contrast could not be starker. The Government has found billions for developers, banks and landlords, yet when it comes to older people, dementia patients and people on disability payments, the approach suddenly becomes penny-pinching. This is a political choice, not a financial necessity. The most troubling part is these concerns are not new. Sinn Féin's health spokesperson, David Cullinane, raised this with Government in October, during the community pharmacy agreement debate.”
“We heard from a woman caring for her grandmother whose medication changes constantly due to supply issues. Without blister packs, which she cannot afford to pay for, her grandmother loses her independence. We heard from front-line workers deeply worried about their frail clients living alone, often taking ten or more tablets a day, who are confused over what tablets to take and when. We heard from families caring for loved ones with dementia, who finally adapted to blister packs after enormous effort. They now feel abandoned. One daughter wrote about her 91-year-old mother who lives alone, already battling rising bills, and relies on blister packs to remain safe at home. She said that taking this away will destroy her independence. These are not isolated stories. This is occurring in the middle of a cost-of-living crisis.”
“She is refusing to recognise the disaster she is presiding over. Vulnerable people who depend on blister packs are being told by a Fine Gael Minister they will face fees in the new year and are on their own. It is a Scrooge-like response in the weeks before Christmas. Blister packs are not a luxury. They are a lifeline. Tens of thousands rely on them, including older people managing multiple medications, people with dementia or Alzheimer's, and those with intellectual disabilities, brain injuries or mental health challenges. Carers and front-line workers know exactly what will happen without them. These packs allow people to live independently. They prevent confusion, mixed doses, missed doses and double dosing. The human stories coming in since yesterday are stark.”
“I extend a word of welcome to the Monaghan Women's Assembly and other guests, ach ba mhaith liom fáilte mór a chur roimh Cara Darmody, who is about to complete her 50-hour sleep-out to again raise the scandal of children waiting for assessment of need. Tá fáilte romhat, Cara. Since yesterday, the depth of public anger at the Government's decision to withdraw funding supports for blister pack medication has been laid bare. The reaction has been extraordinary. Pharmacists and carers have been inundated with messages of fear and disbelief. People who have never contacted a TD before have been calling constituency offices begging for someone to act. Yesterday, the Taoiseach at least conceded that he would look at this issue but today's newspaper tells us that the Fine Gael Minister, Jennifer Carroll MacNeill, is not budging.”
“Had we signed up under Article 4 or left open the consideration, we could have adopted and moved forward at a pace that would ensure that the Houses of the Oireachtas could do their job, which is to scrutinise these measures properly. Instead, we have another proposal, another short deadline, and TDs are told to take it or leave it. It is an absolutely disrespectful way of treating this House and treating the Irish people's House of democracy. For that reason, we will be rejecting the proposal this evening.”
“Along with the concerns I have outlined, once again this highlights how signing up to something under Article 3 of Protocol 21, with just days left until the deadline for signing, is symbolic of a bad approach that unfortunately is becoming all too common on the part of the Government. This week in the justice committee we saw that the State signed up under Article 3 to a provision that results in a deadline of this coming February to enact legislation and the work has not been done. It was signed in 2018. Five years have passed and now there is a rushed attempt to secure a deadline and create a new office. The Minister of State will be aware that the justice committee has raised huge concerns.”
“Will the Minister of State indicate in what detail he has looked into the implication of this new expansion of mutual legal assistance, including issues in respect of sovereignty? It will be useful if the Minister of State outlines the safeguards to prevent the misuse of such provisions. In his remarks the Minister of State mentioned that the Attorney General raised the wider issue of the lack of clarity as to the Commission's competence in exercising its powers with respect to this international agreement. The Attorney General has raised that issue, the Minister of State tells us, but he did not detail what concerns precisely were raised by the Attorney General. It is unfair for the Minister of State to come with another Article 3 proposal while questions remain outstanding.”
“This involves a framework of co-operation on the use of technical recording devices, GPS, audio and software in the territory of another party state, including requests after the fact, such as where it has crossed a border prior to the request being made, for example. This is the part of the third protocol that would raise some concerns in the context of the increased securitisation and militarisation within the European Union. I have some concerns regarding the expansion of the use of technical recording devices in the territory of other states because it is clearly stretching the interpretation of mutual legal assistance which is generally understood as the sharing of evidence, serving of documents, etc., rather than letting the agents of another state operate within your sovereign territory.”
“The second additional protocol broadened the range of situations in which mutual assistance could be requested. It aimed to make the provision of assistance easier, quicker and more flexible, including by taking account of technological developments. While the majority of the third protocol is also related to technological developments, including establishing electronic communications as the preferred means in all cases of sending and receiving mutual assistance requests, it then also permits hearings by video conference. It is this third article of the new protocol which raises some concerns that could suggest greater scrutiny is required. Article 3 of the third protocol deals with the use of technical recording devices in the territory of another state that is party to the convention.”
“While Sinn Féin obviously supports mutual legal assistance to tackle cross-border crime and crack down on those criminals who operate across borders, sovereignty over justice matters must remain firmly in the hands of the people of this State. This motion relates to the third additional protocol to the European Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters. This convention provides that states that are party to it agree to afford each other the widest measure of mutual assistance, with a view to gathering evidence and hearing witnesses, experts and accused persons. The first additional protocol extended international co-operation to the service of documents concerning the enforcement of a sentence and similar measures. It also added provisions related to the exchange of information on judicial records.”
“21 opt-ins should be considered in the context of our overall approach to the mission creep by the European Union in relation to the areas of freedom, security and justice, and also in the context of needing to protect citizen participation through representative political decision-making. For Sinn Féin, the issue of sovereignty is paramount in considering these types of motions, which now regularly come before the Oireachtas for consideration. A constant drip-drip of handing over sovereignty to the EU undermines democracy and our ability as a State to act in the best interests of the people of this State. My position is that unless there is a compelling reason to the contrary, Ireland should make our own decisions on issues in the area of freedom, security and justice.”
“21, we should be examining where member states should be taking back powers to bring decision-making as close as possible to the people affected by those decisions. For most people, EU decision-making is opaque, complex and bureaucratic. There is not enough democratic input into most decisions being made at EU level. It is time to recognise that the less control and input that people feel they have in respect of the decisions that impact on their day-to-day lives, the more it contributes to political alienation and voter apathy. Therefore, all motions that come before the Dáil as part of Protocol No.”
“Each time we debate one of these motions I am struck by the democratic deficit at the heart of the European Union, how far away decision-making is from the people affected, how little democratic input there is and how little the people know about decisions that are being made. The fact is that very often the Irish people know very little about decisions being made at European Union level that will impact on them. As political power was transferred away from EU member states to EU institutions, Protocol No. 21 was an important protection for Irish interests in protecting the right of the Irish people to make decisions in the areas of freedom, justice and security. Not only should we be holding on to the sovereignty that we have, including the powers protected by Protocol No.”
“Gabhaim buíochas leis an Leas-Cheann Comhairle. Cuirim fáilte roimh an deis labhairt ar an rún seo. Is mian liom an deis seo a úsáid chun roinnt pointí tábhachtacha a ardú faoin Aontas Eorpach agus an daonlathas. This is another example of a Protocol No. 21 motion that has come before the Dáil on which, once again, there has been a very short deadline for discussion before signing up. While Ireland has signed up to the European Convention on Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters, as well as the first and second additional protocols to that convention, the third additional protocol we are being asked to sign up to requires proper scrutiny.”
“Companies can come on and off the UN database list but the question is what the point of having it is if it does not ensure that states act accordingly. The UN database sets out those companies that are deriving profits directly from the occupied territories, but it does not even cover all of the companies that are benefiting from Israeli war crimes. One company, Palantir, for example, has seen Irish investment increase since 2021. We are at a point where our holdings are increasing but the value is increasing exponentially. This is a company that has provided the IDF with the resources to conduct its genocide. Is Ireland still investing in that company? Are there plans to divest from that company?”
“It is not good enough that we continue to invest taxpayers' money in companies that derive their profits from a systemic apartheid regime, which involves the occupation of the West Bank in particular. We have known about this for years and that the occupation is illegal. We know of the real-life impact it has had. We also know that because Israel has faced no consequences whatsoever, it has continued to act with impunity, including through engaging in genocide in Gaza over the past couple of years. The very least we can do is ensure we are not investing public moneys in companies benefiting from all of this. While I welcome that there is divestment from six companies, that just shows that progress is far too slow. The Tánaiste indicated that he is going to meet officials from the NTMA.”
“Why is Irish taxpayers' money still being invested in companies that derive their profits from the illegal occupation of Palestinian territories? Will the Tánaiste give the House an update on efforts to divest from such companies?”
“I got given a list of dates on which the CDNT told me services were provided. Then I read the small print which said the above appointments were a mixture of one-to-ones, telehealth and parent training. The Minister should train staff to conduct these services because right across my constituency families are living in poverty because they are going private. They are spending funds that will not be reimbursed because families know that if they do not spend them, their children are going to be denied their opportunity to fulfil their potential in future. It is not good enough and the Minister must finally heed the message that the Government must stop breaking the law.”
“The service in County Monaghan is criticised by a lot of families but there are no children waiting over 12 months, whereas in Cavan there are 207. Almost every child on the waiting list has been waiting for over 12 months. When you try to get the detail and ask questions about the waiting times for physiotherapy, occupational therapy and speech and language therapy we are told waiting lists are not compiled for single disciplines within CDNTs anymore. Why is that? What is Government trying to hide? Why is it when you get into the nuts and bolts of the services that are not being provided the CDNTs are not honest. I asked in respect of a constituent of mine who is young child who is in desperate need. His parents were telling me he has not been able to access speech and language therapy, occupational therapy or physiotherapy.”
“I have seen children who managed to access services in a timely manner and got the right therapies at the right time. I have seen the differences that made in allowing them to live full lives. I have seen other children in my constituency who were denied those opportunities, robbed from them by the Government. We need to get assessments of need right but we also need to ensure that therapies and services are actually delivered to children consistently throughout the State. How is it we have children still waiting over 12 months for basic therapies and services we know they need? Why are there such discrepancies across counties? The CDNTs in counties Monaghan and Cavan are the ones I deal with directly.”
“The motion calls on Government to remedy the fact that this breach of law is now impacting on more than 18,000 children and that those numbers are likely to grow because of the ongoing failure to live up to previous commitments. The motion is certainly different in that it points to one 15-year-old girl who, on many occasions, has forced the State and various Ministers to make commitments. The difficulty, of course, is that those commitments have been broken time and time again. The real impact of a failure to carry out assessments of need is felt for lifetimes. There are children, teenagers now - in fact, there are now adults - who could and should be in much better situations had their rights been vindicated and upheld and the Government obeyed its own laws.”
“One of the most shameful legacies of Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael in government has been the services denied to children with disabilities throughout the State. We are back here tonight with what in many respects is a unique motion before the House. It is unique in a number of ways. It is unique in that it is signed by the entire Opposition. Every party of Opposition has joined in this call on the Government. The motion simply and uniquely sets out what the law is - that children are legally entitled to an assessment of their health and education needs under the Disability Act. Most unique of all, it is asking the Government to stop breaking the law. This is amazing in so many respects. The Opposition is coming to the House to ask the Government of Ireland to stop breaking the law in respect of the most vulnerable children in our society.”
“We need the plans for the permanent school in Monaghan to begin right now. Will the Government promise that every child who needs a place in this special school in Monaghan actually gets one?”
“Despite the Government telling us for years that there was no need for a special school in County Monaghan, a sustained and dignified campaign by families of children with disabilities, which we in Sinn Féin were very proud to support, led to the announcement in the run-up to the last election that an interim special school would open. I am very pleased to say that that school has now opened but it was already clear beforehand – it has since crystallised - that additional capacity would be needed. Today, I am appealing to the Tánaiste to put the full force of the Government behind the campaign to deliver a permanent special school in Monaghan with the capacity for every child who needs it. In too many instances, we have special schools operating in interim or temporary accommodation. That has to end.”
“Landlords tell me this is the absolute best in terms of their conditions because they have no obligations to the tenant and they can get a tax-free payment and top-up payments. For most of the period this scheme has been in place, the Government has refused to accept Sinn Féin's concerns or take on board any of our amendments. Now, the Minister is saying he recognises there are problems and he will bring forward some changes but will not specify exactly what they are or tell us when they will actually be brought in. It is time for real clarity and honesty.”
“Here we go again. The Minister finally announced that there would be a recognition of the potential impact on the rental market months ago and he is still talking about himself and the Minister for housing bringing something forward at some unspecified time. What is really infuriating for so many people is the Government has yet to recognise that this scheme is deeply unfair. It provides a non-means-tested housing support to one group of people in need of housing that is not available to others. There is a situation where one person might be in employment, on good wages and is able to access housing support through the ARP and somebody else who might be on a lower income is not able to avail of it.”
“Crucially, and this is the reason we have not seen any distinction in the number since the reduced payment, they are able to avail of a top-up payment from their tenants without any regulation whatsoever. They are completely freed of any tenancy obligations that they would have for any other tenant.”
“I will agree with the Minister on one point - the accommodation recognition payment was a goodwill gesture for people who opened up their homes to Ukrainians fleeing war. It is very laudable and supported by everybody, I think, in this House. It was then extended and since then the impact of the ARP scheme on the rental market is seen in communities across the State. The Minister and the Government have refused to accept amendments Sinn Féin has brought forward that would limit the scheme to avoid the damage being done in the private rental sector. I welcome that there has been a belated acknowledgement by the Government that the scheme has impacted the private rental sector. We know landlords are availing of the scheme because they are incentivised to do so. Under the ARP, landlords get a tax-free payment.”
“The Minister and Department seem to have at last recognised that the accommodation recognition scheme paid in respect of Ukrainian accommodation has had and is having an impact on the private rental market and what I consider the undisputed fact that landlords are using the scheme to avoid tenancy obligations. Will the Minister outline when he intends to bring forward proposed changes to the accommodation recognition scheme?”
“The Minister is adding to the pressures but not providing the solutions. What does the Minister intend to do to address the concerns around the international protection Bill? Crucially, when are we going to see the income thresholds and fees addressed?”
“For all the recommendations and the fact we need a whole overview of the civil legal aid scheme, two things need to be addressed, namely, income thresholds and fees. I do not believe that even the income thresholds suggested in the majority report are going to be sufficient to provide for access to the justice that I think the Minister will agree is integral. We need to get those two things sorted very quickly. While there has been no movement on that side, there is potentially a lot of additional pressure coming. I do not know whether the Minister followed the pre-legislative scrutiny discussions but people who work in this area have highlighted the burden that will be placed on them by the international protection Bill. Additional work is going to be put on the civil legal aid process.”
“I am told by those who work in the area that the civil legal aid services are virtually on the brink of collapse, unless something is done urgently. I hear what the Minister is saying in terms of asking his officials to do this and wanting to do that. Will he give us a timeframe and clarity as to when we will see action in this area?”
“Having heard the number of announcements the Minister has made over the past year without any changes happening, it concerns me when he has not even made an announcement in respect of this. That says to me that there is not an appreciation yet of the urgency here. There is a real crisis right now in accessing civil legal aid. That means there is a crisis in access to justice. The income limits, incredibly, have not changed since 2006. We are told by everybody involved that the fee structure means we do not have enough private lawyers carrying out legal aid work. That is creating problems in some parts of the country where there are basically no supports available, particularly for vulnerable people, including victims of domestic violence, who just cannot get the representation they need.”
“It is now several months since the Minister received the report on the civil legal aid review, which in itself took three years to complete. Recommendation 22 of that report called for an immediate review of the Legal Aid Board's capacity to administer the current civil legal aid scheme. Will the Minister advise whether that has been commenced and when it is expected to be complete?”
“We do not know the numbers for sure because we are not compiling data on people who might, for example, have come for tourism or on student or work visas and subsequently applied for international protection, or on those who applied in any other way. If the figures are anywhere close to those that have been cited, then it is negligence that ensuring we have an arrangement in place is not at the top of the Minister's list to . As he rightly says, the British Government has a potential benefit from this as well if what it is stating is the case.”
“The Minister should also say, as all of us in this House should say, that managing migration would be much easier if we were doing it on an all-Ireland basis within a unitary state framework and that, therefore, we should try to advance the reunification of our country for that and many other reasons. In 2020, Ireland and Britain agreed informal, non-legally binding operational arrangements to return asylum seekers to each other. How many have been returned to Britain from Ireland? I ask the Minister to provide real figures. Different percentages have been cited in terms of the numbers that are coming through the common travel area.”
“No progress has been made. Is the Minister going to take account of the pre-legislative scrutiny report from the committee and prioritise this issue? It needs to be prioritised.”
“The Minister will be aware that this week, the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Justice, Home Affairs and Migration in its pre-legislative scrutiny report on the international protection Bill asked that consideration be again given to opting out of the EU migration and asylum pact because that pact does not take cognisance of the fact we operate within a common travel area. Ireland is in the unique position of being an EU member state that also has a common travel area with a state outside of the EU. It is becoming increasingly clear that the pact fails to take account of Ireland's unique challenges. I am concerned at the lack of priority that the Minister is giving to what is a programme for Government commitment to prioritise working with the British Government to introduce further measures in respect of the common travel area.”
“The Minister has stated publicly on a number of occasions that a significant proportion - in fact, the vast majority - of those seeking international protection in this State are coming from Britain via the common travel area. It seems logical to most people that we need a bilateral agreement with Britain to ensure those international protection applicants who should be processed in Britain are returned there in a timely manner. What progress is being achieved in securing such an agreement?”