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 23 of 30.
“Ba chóir go mbeadh náire ar an Rialtas seo as an méid atá á dhéanamh aige. The Government's attitude to the GPO is part of a long history of failure in respect of O'Connell Street, its history and heritage. The street where the Irish Republic was declared and where the workers of Dublin fought the Dublin Metropolitan Police, DMP, during the 1913 Lock-out has now been taken over by fast-food chains, litter, dereliction, crime and drug-dealing. Despite the protestations we have heard from Ministers and Government representatives, the truth is that there is a litany of examples of Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael destroying, neglecting and ignoring our republican and revolutionary heritage.”
“I had hoped to hear in the Minister's opening remarks a willingness to engage on latter Stages of the Bill to find language that ensures we can be robust in ensuring the legislation tackles terrorism and extremist violence, but does not impede people's rights to hold views that perhaps the majority, if not all of us, find deplorable. That is the challenge for democratic states across the world. I would have hoped that Ireland would have been up for that task.”
“This brings us back to the definition of terrorism and who gets to define what terrorism is. Who decides who is a terrorist and who is fighting for national liberation? Who is a terrorist and who is resisting occupation and colonialism? When we stray into "provocation", it becomes even more unclear and more dangerous in terms of legislating for it. How is someone who fights in the army of the genocidal state not classified as a terrorist, but those who resist them are? That is a distinction that needs to be addressed. As I have outlined, Sinn Féin is opposing this Bill as it currently stands because we cannot accept the expanded definition of the provocation of terrorism.”
“However, these provisions ignore a central issue in terms of who is currently travelling to engage in violence. Let us be clear: there is no provision in law to deal with those who travel to partake in the genocidal activities of the IDF, for example. The principal Act, the Criminal Justice (Terrorist Offences) Act 2005, explicitly excludes from the provisions of this legislation "the activities of armed forces during an armed conflict insofar as those activities are governed by international humanitarian law". While Israel has repeatedly been condemned for defying international law, those who travel to join the IDF face no threat from this legislation as it currently stands. Even if it is a very small number, Ireland cannot turn a blind eye to those who travel from this State and return having engaged in horrific war crimes in Palestine.”
“Protocol 21, as the Minister knows, provides Ireland with the right to opt-out and the right to opt-in to legislation adopted to govern areas of freedom, security and justice. This protocol remains crucially important in protecting Irish sovereignty and our ability to decide for ourselves what we do on issues such as this. In its briefing note, the Government has indicated that when and if the Bill is enacted, it is its intention to notify the EU Commission and Council that it wishes to participate in the directive. It is clear that the Government accepts that we have the choice not to opt in to this directive. I will briefly touch on the provisions regarding travelling for the purpose of terrorism, provisions which I think everyone supports in principle.”
“This Bill transposes the provision of the 2017 EU directive on combating terrorism. I was a Member of the European Parliament when that directive was being passed, and I voted against it precisely because of the overly broad language and the potential threat to democracy and freedom of expression. I shared the concerns of many that the directive could lead to a criminalisation of public protests and other peaceful acts, the suppression of freedom of political expression and other unjustified limitations on human rights. I pointed out that this sort of anti-terrorism legislation undercuts civil liberties, free speech and the rule of law, with little or no effect on actual terrorist activity.”
“Justice Brian Walsh of the Supreme Court in the extradition case of Finucane v . McMahon. In its 1990 judgment, Mr. Justice Walsh dealt with the issue of the definition of terrorism, stating: The expression "terrorism" is frequently used as a blanket term for many violent acts ranging from pure terrorism to nationalist uprisings to achieve independence. For purely propaganda purposes it is frequently used to characterise activities disapproved of by the propagandists. Only a looseness of thought can equate it with violence as opposed to peaceful persuasion. "Terrorism has no agreed definition and its use is often a way of conveying disapproval rather than being descriptive" The problem is that overly broad and ill-defined definitions of terrorism can be used against legitimate freedom of expression and political protests.”
“In Ireland, the Taoiseach has signed this State up to the discredited IHRA definition of antisemitism, which conflates criticism of Israel with antisemitism. It is a time when the European Union is moving further and further away from the Irish people on matters of foreign affairs and defence. While Europe is moving away from the Irish people, the Irish Government seems to be following Europe rather than the people they serve. There have long been debates about the definition of terrorism. This comes to the crux of it. The label of "terrorist" has been used to demonise different groups and activities at different times, including those involved in national liberation and the resistance of oppression and occupation. It is worth reminding ourselves of the words of the late Mr.”
“The debate on this Bill takes place against the background of an increase in the use of this type of legislation against legitimate political protests in Europe, Britain and America, particularly in respect of Palestine. In the past week, in addition to the charges brought against a member of Kneecap, moves have been made in Britain to ban Palestine Action under terrorism legislation, following lobbying by pro-Israel organisations, despite the fact that no one believes this activist group is involved in actual terrorism. Last year, a woman was convicted and fined in Germany for chanting the slogan, "From the river to the sea". We have to recognise the times we are in, when terrorist legislation is being used elsewhere to crack down on legitimate political activism and free speech.”
“Public provocation charges can be brought where no terrorist offence has been committed. The Minister has acknowledged that, yet the people charged could face ten years in prison. The provisions are so broad that a person could be guilty of a terrorist offence of provocation if they distribute or publish "a message ... that could be reasonably construed as inciting" terrorism, or that "glorifies ... terrorist activity". The definition of glorification includes “praise” and “celebration”. To be quite clear, had such laws existed in the 1980s, it is very possible that putting up in public a poster of Bobby Sands or Nelson Mandela would have been construed as glorifying terrorism.”
“While robust legislation to tackle the real threat of violence and extremism is of course necessary, we need to be very vigilant about the misuse of terrorism-related provisions to target legitimate political protest, activism and freedom of expression. The expansion of the definition of the provisions relating to the provocation of terrorism is deeply problematic. I have termed the provocation of terrorist section "the Kneecap clause” because there is a real fear that this inclusion could lead to charges against political activism and legitimate freedom of expression, similar to the manner in which Mo Chara from Kneecap is currently facing terrorism charges in the UK. Sinn Féin will oppose any such attack on free speech. The provisions are too broad and they are open to abuse.”
“It has equally been used in arguments against commemorating the 1916 Rising or wearing an Easter lily. The question has to be asked as to why we would want to include such a provision in the law of this State, given that we know that such a provision could be misused and abused, as they have been in the past. Why would we want to bring in something like what those in the DUP use to prevent the commemoration of those who fought for Irish freedom? I note the heavy weight the word “intention” carried in the Minister’s remarks. I invite the Minister to go back to the so-called hate speech legislation and the difficulties that his ministerial colleague encountered precisely because of the issues with the interpretation of the word “intention”.”
“Tá Sinn Féin i gcoinne an Bhille seo mar atá sé comhdhéanta faoi láthair. Is drochreachtaíocht í. Ní féidir linn glacadh leis an alt a bhaineann le gríosú. Sinn Féin is opposed to the Bill as it is currently constituted because some of its provisions are authoritarian, uncalled for and open to abuse, particularly regarding the section that would expand the definition of public provocation to commit terrorist offences. I am surprised the Minister has brought forward this legislation. It is legislation that essentially parrots the language of the DUP and others with regard to the so-called glorification of terrorism. It is exactly the type of language that has been used, in the North in particular, to attempt to curtail the rights of families to remember loved ones killed in the conflict in the Six Counties.”
“I will encourage my party to move this as speedily as possible on Second Stage but we want to ensure the Minister and the Government do not put in place any roadblocks. This Bill has gone through the OPLA, the Oireachtas legal team, and there is no legal reason the Bill cannot be enacted. The only reason we might not ensure the Bill would be made law by the end of the year is political will. I am appealing to all parties to show the political will to pass this important yet simple piece of legislation.”
“This Bill will make it possible for the courts to issue a civil protection order for the complainant where the courts have found an offence has been committed under a range of laws related to rape and sexual assault. While not ever victim and survivor of rape and sexual assault may want a civil protection order in place when the perpetrator is released, the potential to put in place such an order should be provided for in law for those who require them. That is the purpose of this Bill. It is important and, in many respects, simple legislation but it could have a profoundly beneficial impact on victims particularly of the serious crimes related to sexual violence. I appeal to the Government to support its speedy transposition through all Stages.”
“The measures that currently exist do not give victims and survivors a sense of safety and security in relation to fears that the perpetrator in their case will not seek them out, approach them or harass them. We need to empower victims and survivors and help them in as much as is possible to have the sense of safety and security needed to rebuild their lives. To address the concerns that victims and survivors have raised with us, Sinn Féin is bringing forward this Bill. Its purpose is to introduce a new provision in law where a person in relation to whom an offence of sexual violence is found to be committed by the courts may be granted a civil protection order.”
“It is crucial that victims and survivors are kept informed as is provided for under section 8 of the Criminal Justice (Victims of Crime) Act 2017, which relates to information regarding investigations and criminal proceedings. It is timely to review whether these provisions are meeting the needs of victims and survivors in a consistent manner when it comes to ensuring they are adequately informed at all stages of the judicial and post-judicial process. Many victims and survivors have genuine fears about the release of perpetrators. They fear contact from perpetrators and encountering that perpetrator as they go about their day-to-day lives. In some cases, these are people who exerted extreme control over them as part of the abuse process and in many cases there is a fear that the perpetrator will seek retribution.”
“This is particularly the case when it comes to victims of rape and sexual assault. Among the issues which need to be addressed is the deeply traumatising impact on victims of the disclosure of counselling notes in rape and sexual assault cases. There are many other issues, though, that which make the process of securing justice difficult for victims and survivors. These include the delays in the court system and the level of support that exists for victims and survivors as they navigate what is a daunting, complex, and unfamiliar situation. For victims and survivors, the challenges do not end when the court case ends, even where there is a conviction. Victims of rape, sexual assault and childhood sexual abuse have spoken to me about the anxiety, stress and fear they feel as their assailants come to the end of their sentences.”
“I move: That leave be granted to introduce a Bill entitled an Act to provide victims of sexual violence with the right to seek civil protection orders. I am pleased to introduce the Bill. I thank those who have engaged with me on this issue and whose personal experience prompted myself and my party to bring forward this Bill. In particular I want to commend Sonya Stokes, Leona O'Callaghan and Shaneda Daly who are in the Public Gallery. I also thank Senator Maria McCormack who has worked with us on this issue. Is í aidhm an Bhille seo foráil nua a thabhairt isteach sa dlí trínar féidir ordú cosanta sibhialta a dheonú ar dhuine ar chinn na cúirteanna go ndearna an duine sin cion foréigin ghnéis. Much more needs to be done to make the judicial process better and more supportive for victims of crime.”
“It would send a very powerful message if we were to deliver the sod-turning on a swimming pool complex in Carrickmacross within the lifetime of this Government. I again urge the Minister of State to work with Monaghan County Council. While it has a role it needs to play, I ask him to be proactive in opening a round of funding that Monaghan County Council can apply for to make this project happen.”
“I am pleased to report that Monaghan County Council is now being proactive. As I mentioned, the pop-up pool has been a huge success. A feasibility study has been conducted by the local authority, which shows and reinforces that the demand is there. The reason there is a national strategy for swimming is that it is much more than a sport. In fact, people involved in every sport benefit from utilising swimming facilities. There is also a recognition that this is an amenity. Carrickmacross is a growing town that has faced challenges in recent years, not least due its growth but also because many of the town’s amenities have been delivered from within the community. We have not seen the type of Government investment that other towns the size of Carrickmacross have received.”
“The period of time it is going to be there has been extended because the demand for it has been so great. There is clearly a huge surge in support for swimming activities. Carrickmacross needs this facility. Will the Minister of State be proactive in supporting towns like Carrickmacross to deliver these facilities?”
“I thank the Minister of State for his response. I urge him to ensure that the new round of funding is opened as quickly as possible. There has long been a demand for a swimming pool among the people of Carrickmacross. When the previous local authority swimming pool programme was in place, there was a substantial fundraising drive in the town but it did not result in a swimming pool. That was largely, to be quite frank about it, due to a bias within the county council executive at that time. Thankfully, we now have a situation where all partners are on board, including the council executive, the members of the local authorities and particularly the local community and sporting organisations. Thanks to the efforts of Councillor Colm Carthy and the wider areas, we recently had a pop-up pool in the town for a number of months.”
“My question is more of an appeal to the Minister and the Minister of State to work with Monaghan County Council, the local community and all elected representatives to help ensure that we can deliver a swimming pool complex in the town of Carrickmacross.”
“I am appealing to the Minister to engage directly on the ground with elected representatives, the staff of both hospitals and management of the Cavan Monaghan General Hospital and ask them how it is that there is capacity, willingness and eagerness in Monaghan hospital to deliver a service with MRI and CT scanners that is desperately needed by patients, yet there is a reluctance in the management group to ask for them.”
“The difficulty is that the application for scanners at Cavan hospital is made, as the Minister said, by Cavan Monaghan General Hospital, but Monaghan hospital needs these scanners and as I understand it, the staff there want them. The difficulty is that they have to go through this convoluted process Micheál Martin established that put Monaghan and Cavan hospitals together. What happens? Priorities are chosen and the priorities have never been the people, patients or even the staff at Monaghan hospital and that needs to change.”
“By providing the services in Monaghan hospital, not only would the Minister be providing a service the people of Monaghan deserve, she would also be relieving the pressures that are on Cavan hospital.”
“Cavan and Monaghan hospitals might be put together for operational purposes but it cannot be claimed that a service in one is equal to a service in the other. There are 47 km between the two sites. Perhaps that does not seem like much to some people, but if people are living in an area with no public transport and a poor ambulance service, that matters. When the Minister says that Cavan Monaghan General Hospital has two CT scanners and one MRI scanner, that does not deflect from the fact that Monaghan hospital has neither and that needs to change. There is a medical need. Currently, more than 1,500 people are waiting for an MRI appointment and more than 1,800 people are waiting for a CT appointment.”
“I thank the Cathaoirleach Gníomhach for his latitude. The Minister may be aware there has been a long saga in respect of Monaghan hospital since emergency and other services were removed by a previous Fianna Fáil Government. Will the Minister help with the evolution and redevelopment of Monaghan hospital by ensuring there is a CT and MRI scanner located on the hospital campus?”
“The Minister's comments that we will most likely be back again here next year having the same debates, conversations and renewal of emergency legislation points to a lack of urgency and willingness to deal with something that should have been addressed immediately after the Good Friday Agreement. The documents laid before the House as part of the renewal process state that consideration will take some time and the Minister will return. There is a need for accountability and the Minister and the Government have to be held to account to ensure the recommendations are implemented without further delay. That is why our amendments have been tabled before the House and it is why I ask all TDs to support them.”
“The ongoing failures in recruitment and retention within An Garda Síochána means there simply are not enough gardaí to fulfil import roles, including in community policing. There is a very specific problem with children and young people being groomed into crime by criminal gangs. Interventions to prevent young people being dragged into crime such as investing in communities, investing in diversion and putting enough community gardaí on our streets are all equally important. We also need to address wealth inequality, poverty and deprivation that create the conditions that leave communities vulnerable and that allow organised crime to thrive. I am concerned the Government is not showing the type of intention and will to bring forward legislation for the overhaul of the Offences Against the State Act in the short term.”
“In our submission to the independent review group, Sinn Féin called for the recommendations of the Law Reform Commission regarding the protection of jurors to be implemented and the practices of other jurisdictions to be examined with a view to adopting best practice in line with international standards to protect juries. The independent review group on the Offences Against the State Act has called for this to be done. There is no reason whatsoever for further delay in doing so. This debate is not taking place in a vacuum. While robust legislation is required to deal with the threat of organised crime, the battle against such criminals starts in the communities and on the streets. The criminal justice system has to be adequately resourced and equipped to tackle organised crime.”
“To protect that fundamental right we have to protect jurors. The potential for jury intimidation remains the main argument for non-jury courts, yet very little provision has been put in place to protect jurors. In 2013, the Law Reform Commission recommended a number of steps that should be taken to give greater protection to juries. Unfortunately again, none of these have been implemented. Those proposals included: that the right of inspection of the jury panel, which may facilitate persons who wish to contact or identify jurors, should be restricted; where necessary, the abolition of the daily roll call of serving jurors in open court; and the creation of a single offence of jury tampering.”
“The UN committee also pointed to the fact the DPP was under no obligation to provide reasons for its decision. It is a wider problem. I heard what the previous speaker said about the independence of the DPP, which is crucial, but there is a question as to accountability mechanisms for the DPP, of which I do not see any. Sinn Féin has argued the legislation to give affect to the independent review should also include a higher bar than what is recommended in the majority report for a non-jury trial. It is argued the legislation should include a requirement of evidence of real and present danger that jury tampering would take place. Protecting the right to a trial by jury expect in very exceptional circumstances has to be our objective. We have to try to ensure, where possible, a jury trial is provided.”
“We have argued for the legislation to stipulate the courts be provided with the power to decide on whether a non-jury trial should take place. I was very interested to hear Deputy Ward's commentary on that. Our position is distinct from the majority report in that view. I welcome Deputy Ward's support and look forward to him supporting any proposals in that regard. It is worth recalling when the use of the Special Criminal Court was criticised at the United Nations Human Rights Committee in 2001, central to those criticisms was the failure of Ireland to demonstrate the decision of the Director of Public Prosecutions to certify that the applicant be tried by the Special Criminal Court was based on "reasonable and objective grounds".”
“As the Minister may know, Sinn Féin was the only party in the Dáil to make a submission to the independent review of the Offences Against the State Act. In that submission, we called for an end to the Offences Against the State Act, an end to emergency legislation and the replacement of the current Special Criminal Court with a new, non-jury, human rights-compliant system. It is essential such a system be human rights-compliant. The independent review group recommended the Offences Against the State Act be abolished in their entirety with a majority recommending a new non-jury court replace the Special Criminal Court to try serious criminal offences for which a threshold has been reached. Sinn Féin has, since then, called for the proposals of this report to be implemented and for legislation to be brought forward without further delay.”
“It states the Irish Government will "initiate a wide-ranging review of the Offences against the State Acts [1939 to 1985] with a view to both reform and dispensing with those elements no longer required as circumstances permit". So, what happened? In the aftermath of the Good Friday Agreement, the Hederman committee, chaired by former Supreme Court justice, Mr. Justice Anthony J. Hederman, conducted a review of the Offences against the State Acts. It published its report in 2002. Its recommendation included new legislation and the repeal of existing legislation. Those recommendations were never implemented. That is why many of us feel the Government has to be kept under pressure on this issue so the independent review does not end up gathering dust on a shelf in the justice Department in the same way.”
“The Criminal Justice (Amendment) Bill 2009 was enacted in July of that year to put in place certain additional legislative measures to tackle organised crime. The problem we have and the reason we still have in place legislation that was introduced at the time of the outbreak of the Second World War is that successive Governments have repeatedly dragged their feet on dealing with this issue despite widespread criticism of the continuation of the Offences Against the State Act. I want to be very clear that this should have been dealt with more than 25 years ago in the aftermath of the Good Friday Agreement. The Good Friday Agreement specifically referenced the use of emergency legislation.”
“That the Offences against the State Acts are outdated at this point is undisputed. The emergency legislation should not be used on an ongoing basis. That is not in question at this stage. Nobody can argue the circumstances that gave rise to the introduction of this emergency legislation exist today. There is widespread agreement that we need a modern legal framework to effectively address organised crime and to properly protect jurors. It is almost 90 years since the Offences Against the State Act was introduced. In that time, the use of the legislation has moved significantly from its original intention. These emergency powers legislation were expanded with the creation of the Special Criminal Court in 1972 and there was further expansion of the Act in 1998 following the Omagh bombing.”
“It is unfortunate it has been two years since the publication of the independent review of the Offences Against the State Act, chaired by Mr Justice Michael Peart, and all we have got to date from the Government is the statement from the Minister last month, repeated today, that he accepted, in principle, the findings of that review. The independent review group report published in 2023 that it recommended the Offences Against the State Act be abolished in its entirety with a majority recommending that a new non-jury court replaces the Special Criminal Court to try serious criminal offences for which a threshold has been reached. Sinn Féin has called for the proposals of this report to be implemented and for legislation to be brought forward without further delay. That is what our amendments to these motions stipulate.”
“I move amendment No. 1: To insert the following after "ending on 29th June, 2026": "; and — calls on the Minister for Justice, Home Affairs and Migration to bring forward legislation to give effect to the recommendations of the Independent Review Group without further delay.". The continued use of emergency powers and essentially outdated legislation has long been criticised. It is disappointing we are back once again reviewing provisions in an Act that should have been replaced a long time ago. I welcome the fact the Government belatedly have come round to Sinn Féin's long-held position that the offences against the State legislation needs to be overhauled. Is maith an rud é go nglacann an Rialtas leis gur cóir an reachtaíocht seo atá as dáta a leasú. Iarraim ar an Aire an reachtaíocht nua a thabhairt chun cinn a luaithe agus is féidir.”
“We have to move forward every single day to undo the historic wrong that was the Partition of our country. We have to start by making practical outreach steps. One of the easiest things we can do is say that our President is, as those who have held the office have proven, the voice of all of the Irish nation. Let us take the step and make sure it becomes a reality.”
“It is right that we would ask what it says to our citizens in the North when we continue to ignore repeated calls they have made for the extension of the right to vote in presidential elections; that we refuse to act on the recommendation of the 2013 Fifth Report of the Convention on the Constitution; and that we fail to act in response to an historic motion in the Northern Assembly that calls for the extension of voting rights to citizens in the North. What it says of successive Governments is that, at the back of it all, there is a sense that people in the North are not as Irish as the rest of us. I come from the Border community. A slip of someone's pen during the time of Partition could have resulted in the same disenfranchisement of people who I currently represent very proudly in this House. It has to end.”
“It is not only disappointing but, I would suggest, disgraceful that, once again, we are going to have a presidential election and, once again, a significant portion of our nation will be denied the opportunity to participate. Almost 30 years after our first President from the North was elected, we still have the ridiculous situation where people from the Six Counties can run in the presidential election but they cannot actually vote. We have failed to uphold the rights of those in the North to their Irish citizenship as recognised in the Good Friday Agreement. The truth is that the issue should have been resolved long before now.”
“I hope this is a sign of hope that people are going to stand up and demand change because absolutely no hope is coming from this Government.”
“Unless the policies that have been put forward time and again by Opposition parties, civic society groups and experts across the field, including in tonight's motion, unless and until those policies are enacted, the situation is going to get much worse. In reality, this means the young people who have just finished their leaving certificate examinations do not see a future for themselves in this country. They are well qualified and many of them will go and get the best university education in the world. They will be highly qualified, highly motivated and very talented and they will be in a position to get a job, but they will not be in a position to take that job because they will not be in a position to find somewhere to live. It is time for change. It was correct and right that people travelled to Dublin to the Raise the Roof protest.”
“We should just rename this debate the "black is white" debate. The Government is essentially trying to convince us that black is white. To have the audacity, as Ministers have done this evening, to come into this House and claim that their housing plan is working is akin to trying to convince people that the Earth is flat. The thousands of people who were outside this House this evening, demanding that we raise the roof, demanding of their elected representatives that we raise the roof on their behalf, know the reality of the record of the parties in government. House prices and rent costs through the roof, homelessness figures beyond anything anybody could have imagined. On every single metric the situation is getting worse, every day, week and year that Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael are in government supported by Independents.”
“I appeal to the Minister of State, the senior Minister and all members of the Government to ensure that we do not waste this opportunity.”
“The greatest travesty would be if the Minister brings forward a legislative change that goes through the Houses, which can take time, and then, at the end, Deputy Coppinger ends up having to redraft her Bill and bring it back before the Dáil because the meaning of the Minister’s legislation, in the context of the Judiciary, meant little difference to those people who have sent us a clear message that the system needs to change profoundly. We have been given a challenge that tests all of our words, both Government and Opposition, and particularly those of the male Members of this House. While we have said that there will be zero tolerance, a sea change and so forth, we now have an opportunity whereby we can prove all of our utterances right.”
“We have to improve communications and protections for victims and survivors when perpetrators are released, which is often a difficult and anxious time for many. This is just not considered in the law at all. To speak on behalf of the members of the Joint Committee on Justice, Home Affairs and Migration, we have been clear that we wish to see some of the campaigners who have courageously spoken out on this issue, including the solicitors who have been proactive in respect of it, to be part of our pre-legislative scrutiny of the Minister's legislation.”