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 22 of 30.
“In the first instance, migration policies should be decided at a state level when possible by governments which are answerable to their electorates. Sinn Féin believes that Ireland’s sovereignty on migration issues should only be impinged when it is necessary to act collaboratively. We accept there are occasions, instances and policy areas where that is the case. There is a need for co-ordination, for example, in the EU with returns and information sharing. However, in the first instance, it is the Irish Government’s responsibility to ensure that our migration system here in Ireland works better, faster and more efficiently while being human-rights compliant. I wish to address the major concerns of sovereignty with respect to how the Government is approaching opt-ins to regulations under Protocol 21.”
“The primary objective of an Irish Government should be to do what is in Ireland’s best interests. Where it is in Ireland's best interests to opt in, this is best done under Article 4 of Protocol 21 when we can examine in these Houses the final contents of the regulation and are in a position as an Oireachtas to satisfy ourselves that this is the case. The majority of the problems facing Ireland’s international protection system do not require EU legislation or regulations. They require a Government that ensures that international protection applications are processed quickly, decisions enforced to ensure that those who are not entitled to remain leave swiftly and that those who are entitled to remain are supported to integrate into our communities.”
“Article 4 of Protocol 21 gives us the option to opt in when we know exactly how such a regulation would operate in Ireland’s unique circumstances. The motions, which remain on the clár, and which we are considering today, deal with important matters, including planning for the end of temporary protection, the designation of safe countries and safe third countries. These are matters Sinn Féin believes should be dealt with by an Irish Government based on what is best for the country rather than through an EU-wide approach that will be heavily influenced by the needs of the larger EU states, which are also part of the Schengen area. The Government keeps repeating when bringing forward such motions that Ireland is aiming to demonstrate our commitment to an EU-wide approach to migration. Who exactly are we trying to impress?”
“In explaining the late withdrawal of this motion, the Government has cited the “complexity of the hybrid legal basis” of the regulation, which has been constructed by the Commission as a hybrid measure with Ireland, Schengen states and Schengen associated states. The fact the Government had to pull this motion with 24 hours' notice should be a wake-up call for anyone who thinks it makes sense to hand the Government a blank cheque to sign up to regulations by rushing through opt-ins under Article 3 of Protocol 21 when we have the option to do so later with more information under Article 4. Sinn Féin has always said Ireland’s unique position as an EU state outside of Schengen and part of the common travel area with Britain raises specific challenges and that our approach to any proposed regulation has to be carefully considered.”
“We are being asked to debate three distinct motions as part of one debate to facilitate an early opt-in to proposed EU regulations. Until yesterday afternoon, we were due to be dealing with four motions. The withdrawal of the motion on the returns regulation reinforces everything Sinn Féin has been saying, and which I will address here, about why we should not opt in to these regulations under Article 3 of Protocol 21. It is astounding and concerning that the Government was planning to push through an Article 3 opt-in where it has now been revealed that Ireland’s manner of participation is still under discussion with EU counterparts.”
“We need an Irish government now to step up and grasp the massive opportunities for all the people of Ireland's 32 counties. Will the Government now start planning and preparing to deliver a united Ireland that we know can be a better Ireland for us all?”
“Major research conducted jointly by Dublin City University and Ulster University published this morning highlights how the reunification of Ireland is a huge opportunity for us all. It finds that the costs of unity would be far lower than had previously been put forward by opponents of Irish unity. In my view the research has delivered a fatal blow to any economic arguments that might have been presented against a united Ireland. This is good news and exciting news. It shows that there are opportunities and benefits of reunification there to be seized. We now need an Irish government that will demonstrate the vision, the ambition and the action to match that opportunity. This generation, in my view, can unite Ireland but the Government needs to come off the bench and to get onto the pitch.”
“I will ask the same question that has been put to the Taoiseach, the Tánaiste and successive Ministers all week one more time. Will fees be €2,000, as they were last year, or will they be higher? Will the Minister please show people some common decency and come down from his ivory tower and answer that question? People need to know and they need to know today.”
“The Taoiseach, the Tánaiste, the Minister for higher education, the Minister for public expenditure and now the Minister for Finance cannot answer the simplest question that will have a life-defining impact on many students who are having conversations today, which will impact the rest of their lives, on whether they can travel to university or college or whether they must find somewhere more local and whether they will be able to afford a place to rent or whether they will have to commute. They do not want to hear what politicians are planning to do at some point in the future. I could stand up here and talk about how Sinn Féin does not want to just keep fees at €2,000 but wants to abolish them, but that will not answer the question being asked today.”
“The Minister's Government is all over the place on student fees. We have had the Minister for higher education, Deputy Lawless, clearly state on Sunday that without a cost-of-living package in the budget, college fees will go up by €1,000 in September. His position was then backed up by the Taoiseach. Let us clear up this mess today. I have just one simple question for the Minister and it is the same question that has been anxiously asked at kitchen tables all over the country. When students get their bill in September, how much will they be asked to pay? Will it be €2,000 or €3,000? Students and their families need an answer to that question today. It is the only question I have for the Minister.”
“I understand there are processes involved but this is three years in the making and now the Minister is talking about consultation processes. He must put himself in the shoes of those who want to secure a barring order or a civil protection order but currently cannot get legal representation. If they were listening to two politicians talk about process, the Minister can imagine the frustration that would be there. Can the Minister give a timeframe for when this particular issue will be resolved? Further, to put on the record, does the Minister also accept there is an issue here for the number of solicitors willing to take on this work? One way or another, it needs to be addressed. Does the Minister accept there are particular geographical issues where this issue is especially acute?”
“Part of the problem for this particular type of court is that there are many adjournments, and this can make it unsustainable.”
“As the Minister may recall, my interest in this matter comes from several different angles but particularly as a result of work I have done with women, predominantly, who have sought protection or barring orders and have tried to secure legal representation under the civil legal aid entitlements but cannot get legal representation. The Minister told me this would be considered in the context of this review. While increasing access to legal aid is absolutely laudable at the centre of this particular crisis, I am told by both women and legal practitioners that the problem is the legal aid fees paid to solicitors on the District Court panel of family law solicitors. That is what is deterring solicitors from taking on cases.”
“The Minister will know there is significant concern in the legal profession and elsewhere on the time it has taken for the civil legal aid review group to complete its work. I understand he has now received the report from that group. Can the Minister give us an outline of the findings of the report which he previously cited in response to me and could he give an indication of when that report will be published?”
“It would be useful if the Minister of State explained to the House the process for tracking and monitoring those who receive a final negative decision to ensure they leave Ireland as required. How many people are now in the State who have received a final negative decision but who have not left voluntarily, even if they have indicated an intention to do so? It is important to know how many are now currently subject to the deportation order. Do we have information on the precise locations of those people who have received a negative decision or a deportation order but who are currently in Ireland? If so, can the Minister of State quantify precisely how many people are currently in the State who would fall into either of these categories?”
“I would just like to get clarification on the numbers the Minister of State has provided. Is there documentary proof? There is clearly a further gap in respect of people whose situations we just do not know.”
“I am just not sure whether the Minister of State has actually answered the question. In respect of the numbers he provided on voluntary returns - 934 and 885, if I noted them correctly - can he confirm that the people notified the authorities with the appropriate documentation within three days of having voluntarily left? Could he give a breakdown differentiating between those who made their own arrangements to leave and those who received assistance from the voluntary returns unit? This is fundamental. There are three distinct issues within the international protection system that clearly have not been working: the time it takes for processing decisions; the scandal within the accommodation system owing to the profiteering that is taking place; and decision enforcement.”
“The Minister of State, Deputy Brophy, will know there is a sense that the enforcement of negative decisions within the international protection system is not working. I would appreciate it if he could outline to the House the percentage of those who received final negative decisions who voluntarily left Ireland within the 30-day period and subsequently provided authorities with evidence that they had done so within three days of arrival in their home countries.”
“Will there be five intakes this year or next year in the Garda College? The Minister might also indicate if there are plans to increase the capacity to allow intakes of 250 trainees. Has the Minister examined the impact of the rate of payment of the Garda training allowance? We know there was an increase but where the very changes he has referred to in the age profile of those joining the gardaí are concerned and how older people generally have more financial commitments, we are told by the representative organisations that the training allowance is still not sufficient to capture people in that demographic. If the Minister is looking for an idea, there is one off the bat - increase the training allowance, increase the intake numbers permitted and ensure we go beyond increasing not just the number of applications.”
“There can be variation in the numbers going into each intake but the one thing that is very clear is that in no intake at the Garda College was there as many trainees as the college had capacity to train. At no stage did 200 or even close to 200 attest. In some cases, the figures were far below that. The difficulty is that the Government has been talking for quite some time now about 1,000 gardaí per year being attested. We are nowhere near this. It makes me inclined to accept the position of the Garda Commissioner when he said it was just not possible to train 1,000 gardaí this year. Does the Minister agree with that? Last year, the numbers trained in Templemore were around 400 short of that target. Does the Minister accept that he, the Department and the Garda still do not have a grip on the recruitment and retention crisis?”
“I ask the Minister the number of gardaí in each intake, the number who attested over the previous three years and if he will make a statement on that. I also ask him to refer to the potential of reaching the target of 1,000 new recruits this year.”
“This is notwithstanding everything I have said about the right to free speech. I believe in it passionately but if somebody wants freedom of speech, he or she should also avail of the freedom to reveal himself or herself and have the guts to stand over what it is he or she wants to say.”
“It is a high bar for a lot of people who might find themselves in that position. As the Minister said, there has been an evolution of defamatory comment. Due to the multitudes of mediums by which people can publish assertions, it is probably people who do not have access to a solicitor or recourse to or understanding of the law who are likely to become victims in all of this. I hope that we will reach a point where not only will this mechanism work but the fact that the mechanism is there will give social media companies the freedom to divulge the information early on when it is requested by people seeking to find out who is behind these anonymous accounts that in many cases are causing significant societal destruction in terms of the malicious agendas they pursue.”
“I also hope these provisions address the issues the Minister outlined. I do not dispute anything he said, including the argument that politicians should have thick skins. I endeavour to live up to those standards daily. I am a passionate advocate of freedom of speech. I believe it is essential in a functioning democracy that people can feel to say things - even nasty things or critical things - about politicians or others in power, particularly those in power. There is a distinction between free speech and anonymous speech whereby somebody can hide behind a computer and not have the guts to reveal himself or herself when he or she publishes what can be abhorrent material about a person or entity with no consequences. In that vein, I mean it when I say that I hope that the provisions outlined by the Minister do their stated job.”
“I do not in believe in penalising a media organisation or an individual journalist when mistakes have been made, provided that they have made every effort to ensure the truth was the basis of the information that was published. We are agreeing on the outcome, but perhaps the Minister and I are coming at this with different experiences. As he rightly said, and this is important when we deal with all of this, the real threat to people's good character is not coming from a daily broadsheet or the evening news anymore. It is coming from anonymous actors who have, in many cases, malicious intent. They are publishing material that can be published much more widely than any traditional media could, and much faster. It is important when we are discussing these matters to be conscious of all of that.”
“I do not argue with the Minister about any of that and that is why we are not opposing this section. I will make one point. The Minister suggested that the media never go out of their way to lie about someone. Can I suggest that he is saying that with the luxury of being a Fianna Fáil representative? If he were a representative of my party, he would not be able to say that. There have been instances where media outlets have published downright lies about my party. They have done so knowing they were lies. No defamation case was possible because it was the entity of Sinn Féin, rather than individual members, that was defamed. So be it. I will defend to the last the right of the media to do their job of holding power to account. I accept there will always be instances where genuine mistakes are made.”
“There is now a broad array of broadcasting vehicles, including anonymous Facebook pages, personal TikTok accounts and multibillion euro media enterprises. There is an obligation that if you are publishing something to the world at large, you make due effort to ensure you are publishing the truth and facts, and are not demeaning somebody's good name or character. In all of this debate, we must acknowledge why defamation laws exist in the first place. It is a legitimate reason. It provides the balance between free speech and the right of a person to vindicate his or her good name. There is also the public interest provision that needs to be there and that is why I will not be opposing these amendments.”
“If that is the case and it is one of the reasons the public interest defence has not been used regularly, so be it. Everybody acknowledges that every organisation and person can make mistakes for the right reasons. That is why this particular section of the Bill is important. There should be no get-out-of-jail-free card for people who cite the public interest but are really on witch-hunts or following their own agendas, whether political, personal or financial. We need to be very clear in that respect. It is always a bit archaic to consider that a decision of the British House of Lords became de facto common law that is applicable in Ireland. As I say, I welcome the clarification of that issue in this legislation. Above all, we need to be clear that truth matters, particularly in the modern world.”
“This sense that newspapers or other media organisations are living in fear because of defamation laws has been exaggerated. I do not think that the media sector does itself many favours. I cited earlier the recent Adams case in the High Court. Clearly, what was published and broadcast about Gerry Adams was not true. Anybody could see it was not true and was highly defamatory, yet it went to the High Court at obscene cost to the BBC, a public body. Immediately afterwards, the loser in the case, the BBC, doubled down on what in my view was an unsustainable position. Other media organisations and representatives talked about a chilling effect. I will put on the record that there should be a chilling effect on media outlets to stop them publishing things about people that are not true.”
“If people maliciously use the court system to intimidate people from speaking truth to power, so-called strategic lawsuits against public participation, SLAPP, it is absolutely right that they would be held to account. That is why we will be supporting the provisions in that regard. I also think we should reflect on the reason the public interest defence has not been used or cited too often. Usually if there is a very strong argument for a public interest defence, the case would not come to trial in the first place. As I mentioned previously, I have a concern around the narrative of this whole issue. The Minister acknowledged on Committee Stage that Ireland does not have a big issue with SLAPP. We have had an issue in the past in respect of high awards. The awards were substantially too high.”
“I thank the Minister for his remarks. Most people will welcome the clarification that these amendments bring. However, we need to be very clear as a House in terms of setting out precisely the need for this, if you want simplification of the defence of public interest. My position on this matter is fairly straightforward: media organisations or anybody who is publishing information pertaining to individuals and entities should not tell lies about them. They should not publish things that are not true. If they do, then people have a right to vindicate their good name through the courts, I would argue, adjudicated by a jury of their peers. I absolutely agree with the provisions in this Bill.”
“I think this will be the first section of the legislation that could very well result in a return of the Dáil to amend this legislation further. As I mentioned on Committee Stage, there is real potential to have what might be described as corporate entities - they could be charitable organisations, as I said in the debate, or they could be political parties - that could suffer from malicious articles or publications and while they might not meet that test, the damage could be very real. I reiterate that I have a concern in that respect. Nevertheless, we will not oppose any of the amendments in this section.”
“I will make a couple of points. On the retail defamation, as it is called, and section 8, as I have indicated before, it is incredibly important that we have this defence. It is equally important that this defence is not abused. There is clearly a communication issue. I met a retailer in the House today, a member of a representative organisation, who expressed real concerns that this section will not actually do what the Oireachtas wants it to do. Prior to Committee Stage in the Seanad, perhaps the Minister would be willing to engage with representative organisations to clarify this or to get a sense of whether there is a need for further clarity within the section. I did not move any amendments with regard to the so-called corporate provisions and the test that is to be incorporated.”
“(2) The court may, on the application of any party to a defamation action in the High Court, order that in matters which may involve substantial damages— (a) issues of fact shall be tried with a jury, and (b) the quantum of any damages which may arise be adjudicated by the presiding judge.”.”
“I move amendment No. 6: In page 6, lines 22 to 24, to delete all words from and including “a” in line 22 down to and including line 24 and substitute the following: “the court may, on the application of any party to a defamation action in the High Court, or a question of fact or an issue arising in such an action, order that the action or any issue of fact in the action shall be tried without a jury if it is of opinion that such trial— (a) will require any protracted examination of documents or accounts or any technical, scientific or local investigation which cannot conveniently be made with a jury, (b) is for any special reason (to be mentioned in the order) unsuitable to be tried with a jury.”
“When there is a rationale for a law – not that I ever agreed with it, but I ask the Minister to bear with me - but that rationale clearly stops existing, does he not agree that it amounts simply to pigheadedness to pursue the law regardless, without any consideration of the consequences? I do not want to put words in his mouth, but if I am correct, the Minister is on the record as saying his mind has been changed on this. Previously, we know that he was very cautious and warned these Houses about abolishing juries in this instance. Now, he is advocating the exact opposite of that. How would the Minister feel if, upon further reflection in a number of years' time when he is out of office, he realises he made a real mistake and undermined the judicial system? I ask him to reflect on that.”
“I feel the Minister is chasing his tail trying to find reasons to support this provision when he knows in his own heart, and with his own legal experience, that there is no credible reason to do it. This was a move on the part of a predecessor of his, predominantly pressed by large-scale media outlets and owners, to address one particular issue and then a number of other issues were thrown in, including the abolition of juries. When the abolition of juries was put forward, it was a surprise to a lot of people, including the Oireachtas committee that was dealing with it. The entire logic that was presented by the Minister's predecessor and the Department was down to the cost of awards. That is the reason that was provided and that reason has now been put in the dustbin. The Minister has acknowledged that through the Higgins judgment.”
“Has he considered that what will happen as a result of this move is an increase in the length of time and the costs because the likelihood of appeals will be substantially higher? The reason for that is because people are less likely to appeal a jury verdict because they know that higher courts are very reticent to overturn a jury decision. Very particular points of law must be made in that respect. They are not as reticent about overturning a decision of one of their colleagues in the Judiciary. That is a matter of fact. My estimation is that, far from the stated rationale he presents, this Part will do the exact opposite because we will see increased pressure on the overall court system.”
“I do not know if the Minister realises, but he has undershot the entire premise and logic put forward for this Part. If I am right, he dismissed the costs that might be incurred but he said there might be an impact on the time. I would argue that the time saved would be minuscule. The Minister seems to accept that we are now in a situation following the Higgins case where there is a parameter and that is being adhered to by the courts and by juries. We had a very high-profile case involving the former president of my party and awards were given precisely in line with the standards that have now been set. The Minister has not addressed something that arose in conversations, private and otherwise, with legal professionals, including judges.”
“I believe that would be a sensible middle ground. It is not as far as I would like the Minister to move, but it would be a positive and welcome step if he were to accept it.”
“Where we can have all-Ireland harmonisation, surely that is a good thing. Why not have the same system in the North where upon application, it would allow a judge to rule that a jury may or may not be suitable for a particular case? Our amendment goes a little bit further, in that it would allow for the provision for the judge to step in on the determination of costs, one of the stated reasons for the inclusion of this provision in the legislation in the first place. The Minister has options. He can roll back on this daft idea of eliminating juries from High Court defamation cases in its entirety and support amendment No. 4, but if he is not willing to do that, he can meet us half way by supporting amendment No. 6, which allows for the use of a jury to be determined by a judge on application.”
“A previous justice spokesperson by the name of Jim O'Callaghan made a very impassioned case in this House not to go down this line, yet here we are. I will make a final appeal to the Minister, although it appears that it will fall on deaf ears, to do what he knows is right and not proceed with this provision. The current legislative process for juries in High Court cases is sufficient, but I have gone further and moved half way. In the expectation that the Minister will whip to reject amendment No. 4, we have tabled amendment No. 6. The Minister may rule out the deletion of those sections that delete the role of citizens entirely, but let us take the process of pre-legislative scrutiny and move to an all-Ireland model on this issue. I know it is an area where the Minister shares my views in many respects.”
“We would have been here for a short number of minutes and got the Bill passed, and the Minister could have said that he had addressed many of the concerns that existed within our defamation laws, particularly the potential use of SLAPPs, through one of the first Bills he brought through the House and that he had the full support of the House in so doing. Instead, the Minister has done something that goes against everybody who has entered into this debate, apart from a few mega-wealthy media owners who want to just simply curtail the rights of anybody to vindicate his or her good name at all costs. The Law Society of Ireland, the Bar Council and the Oireachtas' own pre-legislative scrutiny, with its cross-party report, urged the Government not to go down this line.”
“We have had the Higgins judgment, which shows there is now a formula for dealing with substantive awards. All the conventional wisdom would suggest that we will not see the types of excessive award being granted into the future. I find it deeply regrettable. A number of Members from across the Opposition spoke at length on Committee Stage. We set out very clearly that this was, in essence, the only provision of the legislation that prevented unanimity on its passing through the House. With a bit of humility on the part of the Government by accepting that it had got this wrong, we could have had the Bill passed through the House unanimously. Virtually every other amendment apart from this one is technical in nature on Report Stage.”
“All this will do is remove from High Court defamation cases a fundamental pillar of our legal system that is older than democracy itself in many states. Any defamation case involving anybody should have at least the option of being heard by a jury. Matters of defamation are by their very nature about the value and esteem of one's name. It is Sinn Féin's contention that the ultimate arbiters of that should be a jury of one's peers. They should be entrusted with weighing the balance of rights and harms. We appreciate the procedural concerns and the risk of disproportionate awards but we do not feel that, as presented by the Minister and his predecessors, they are sufficient justification for curtailing the right to due process. If anything, any of the logic that was in place or could have been put in place has since been discounted.”
“I move amendment No. 4: In page 6, to delete lines 18 to 35, and in page 7, to delete lines 1 to 9. I will also speak to amendment No. 6. Amendment No. 4 is a simple but substantive amendment. We have spoken about this previously. Our principal objection to this legislation is the abolition of juries in all cases. I believe the Minister would privately accept that this is a bad, dangerous and nonsensical position to be adopting. I have not met a single person in the legal world who agrees with this move. This is one of those times when the Government has wanted to be seen to be acting as opposed to actually doing anything that will have a meaningful impact in respect of the operation of the media, the costs awarded by courts and the timeframe that these cases take.”
“All of the evidence suggests this would be an extremely dangerous situation. It would not be an exaggeration to state that such an approach would present a significant risk to both students. Will the Government engage urgently with the NCSE to ensure this issue and the hundreds of other cases like it are urgently resolved?”
“It is scandalous that there are children with special needs today whose parents do not know whether they will be able to start school in the new term because the necessary SNA support is not yet in place. To give one example, there is a rural school in County Monaghan which has one SNA and one pupil who depends full time on this support. Another pupil is due to start at the school next month, who will also need a full-time SNA. This is the position of the school, the position of the preschool which the child is attending at present and the position of every professional who has worked with the child. The NCSE and the Government have not yet sanctioned the extra SNA at the school. In fact, the advice being given to the school is that the SNA who is already there should be shared between the two students.”
“In any other capital city, the GPO, an historic building so centrally located, would be the site of a state-of-the-art museum charting the struggle for Irish freedom and independence. Instead, Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael are content to turn it into a glorified shopping centre. For all the Minister's propositions, he may back down now because he will not get away with it. Republicans the length and breadth of Ireland will battle to save-----”
“The GPO, as the headquarters of the Easter 1916 Rising, should be part of an historic and cultural quarter that would include the entire Moore Street 1916 battlefield, as proposed by Sinn Féin. If anyone wants a reminder that these parties do not value our history, it is the fact that Thomas Clarke's shop at the top of O'Connell Street is now a Londis. Who knows what commercial premises will be in the GPO if the Government gets its way? For all the Government's practical approaches, I ask the Minister to contemplate the following. On O'Connell Street, Ireland's main street, the site of the GPO where the Irish Republic, still unfulfilled, was declared, there is not one statue to an Irish republican leader, including the 1916 leaders.”