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 24 of 30.
“It is virtually indisputable that we need to strengthen the entire justice system when it comes to the support it offers to victims and survivors, both in the context of the experience of dealing with the policing system and the Courts Service and the supports that are provided through the legal process and afterwards. All of this needs to be premised on ensuring that the process does not add to the trauma. This should be the starting point when we are dealing with victims of any crime, but particularly cases of sexual assault, rape and gender-based violence. We must end the lengthy delays for rape and sexual assault cases that are forcing people to put their whole lives on hold for long periods.”
“We also need to be mindful that the majority of counsellors, psychologists and psychiatrists are good at their job and play a good and important role. They are telling us clearly that this, in their professional opinion, is dangerous and that there are implications as to it having a particular impact. I welcome the visitors to Dáil Éireann, including those from the professions who deal with this issue at the coalface. Usually, we say to people in the Public Gallery that although they are welcome, they should not have to be here. In this instance, however, those present should be coming to the Oireachtas. We should be bringing them here to get their perspective on the experiences of the people they see in counselling sessions relating to the criminal justice system in order that we can learn and ensure we make the system better.”
“To go off on a tangent, I dealt with a family once whose young teenager was misdiagnosed by every health professional as having an eating disorder. Throughout the process, no one believed the child did not have an eating disorder. The child actually had a physical condition that was resulting in a loss of weight. Subsequently, the family received all the medical records and details through freedom of information requests. As part of that, the psychologists who the family met in hospital wrote in their notes to the effect that the child and family were in denial, etc. Imagine something like that being handed to a judge. In that instance, the psychologist involved was entirely wrong. In a defence team’s hands, however, those notes would be used to destroy a legitimate case. We need to be mindful of that.”
“To be fair to others, they have spoken about how they have not got counselling because they did not want to have their personal notes disclosed to the perpetrators and to the court. This then delays their ability to rebuild their lives and work through the violence and trauma they have experienced. We need to understand this as legislators. We are being told there is a provision in our law that creates a situation where some victims either do not go to the counselling they need or do not go to court. This is a very big deal and we cannot just brush it off legally here. I was struck by the argument regarding the value counselling notes could bring to a trial. It is not the victim’s words; rather, it is the counsellor’s record and, often, his or her views.”
“Victims and survivors have spoken of it as a second violation, soul destroying and an invasion of privacy. For victims, the idea that their private counselling notes, where they talk about what happened to them, would be read to the perpetrator, the defence team, the prosecution and, even to be quite frank about it, the judge, significantly compounds the trauma they have experienced. Even without this provision, we should note that many victims and survivors are reluctant to even come forward and report what has happened to them because they often feel they are the ones who will be put on trial. The disclosure of counselling notes for many just simply confirms their fears about how the justice system treats victims of rape and sexual assault.”
“That would be the most appropriate mechanism and forum for addressing any challenges that might present. This is because - and it has been said but it needs to be repeated - victims of rape and sexual violence have been very clear that the disclosure of counselling notes has been doubly traumatising for them. Very commendably, many victims have spoken about this publicly. They have waived their anonymity to set out in stark terms what the impact of this provision in law has meant for them. As legislators, we have an obligation to listen, hear and, more importantly, to act because clearly this is not an easy thing to do. It is a measure of the anger and frustration of the victims at how the disclosure of counselling notes has left them feeling.”
“It has done this without actually dealing with the problems or setting out any of the resolutions. In fact, the Government has just said there is a problem and it is not going to deal with it at all. That is very regrettable. It is also regrettable that rather than allowing this Bill proceed to Committee Stage, the Government has tabled a delaying amendment. It is bemusing because usually the Government puts forward an amendment proposing a delay of nine months. It is often known as the pregnancy amendment clause. The Government recognises it would be too crass to even suggest that so it is a 12-month delay on that basis. That is regrettable because I reiterate as the chair of the Oireachtas committee that will deal with this issue that we would welcome debates to address the issues the Government has said exist.”
“I welcome the opportunity to speak on this issue. I commend Deputy Coppinger on again highlighting this issue by bringing it here to the floor of the Dáil and, more importantly, by bringing forward this legislation because legislative change is required in this area. I acknowledge that the Minister, Deputy O'Callaghan, has recognised this to the point that he has said he plans to deal with this issue as part of the criminal law and civil law (miscellaneous provisions) Bill 2025, which the justice committee I chair will be shortly conducting pre-legislative scrutiny of. I have some fears, though, due to the remarks by the Minister of State. What the Government has done very well is set out what the problems may be in terms of a potential constitutional challenge.”
“I hope that Deputies from Government parties will reflect on the decisions that were made over the past number of decades and ensure we actually have the sea change that is required to ensure we will never again see scandals such as this.”
“I am sure the Minister of State also knows that when families the length and breadth of this State try to do that for their families, they are met with obstacles from the State. If they want to care for their loved ones themselves, they are assessed for whether they can get some support on the basis of somebody else's income. The Government parties made a commitment to the abolition of the carer's allowance threshold, but we have not heard a single word about that since the general election. We also have the situation where those who need home help hours cannot get them. What has been happening within the home help system over the past two decades? Privatisation has been going on, with commercial companies providing a service that the State should be providing.”
“Essentially, people who have an invaluable role in our society - caring for our elderly or other vulnerable citizens - are earning the same wage as a teenager on a summer job in a meat factory. There is something profoundly wrong with that situation. We cannot point to others without recognising that political decisions led to that scenario. We have to move away from the privatisation and commercialisation of our healthcare system, in the round. We need to start with the provision of care for elderly members of our community who have contributed all their lives to our society. I heard what the Minister of State said about the prioritisation of home care. I agree with him. Every person I know wants to grow old in their own home if that is at all possible.”
“We know that the move away from the public nursing home model has had a profound impact. Local family-run nursing homes are telling us they cannot survive financially. Has anyone questioned this question: if they cannot survive financially, how is it that multinational institutions are able to come into Ireland, operate at such a large scale, and not only survive but be financially profitable? It is clear that corners have been and are being cut. We have to recognise that when you privatise a service, you have a race to the bottom. People who are on the minimum wage are caring for the most vulnerable people in society. People who were portrayed in that programme are on the minimum wage.”
“When he watched the programme, surely the Minister of State reflected on the specific, determined and protracted policy of privatisation of our nursing home care. The privatisation of the care of our most vulnerable citizens, regardless of whether it is elder care, home care or healthcare, is wrong. It does not work. The provision of such care should be something in which the State takes a leadership role. I heard what the Minister of State said about older people in nursing homes needing to be treated with respect. That is absolutely right. The first step in treating our elderly with respect is to stop treating them as a commodity. When the Government privatises and, in particular, commercialises the provision of care, a profit motive is introduced. Serious questions have to be asked.”
“The company at the centre of these revelations, Emeis nursing homes, bears primary responsibility for what was exposed in the investigation. Emeis, of course, has to be held to account for how these vulnerable people were mistreated, but we also have to deal with fundamental failures and the abuses that were exposed and recognise that Government policy over recent decades has played a role in all of this. This is not the first scandal in an Irish nursing home. Indeed, much commentary is being made of the fact that 20 years ago the Leas Cross scandal led to the establishment of HIQA. I heard what the Minister of State said. Leaving politics aside, I accept that all Members of all parties will be equally disgusted.”
“Older people, indeed, all of our vulnerable citizens, deserve to be treated with dignity and afforded the highest quality of care and the services that they need. What we saw, though, in the revelations in the "RTÉ Investigates" programme was appalling, showing shocking abuse and serious failures and neglect. I can only imagine how upsetting it was for the families of the people who were revealed to them in that programme, for others who had family members resident in those homes and, indeed, for anybody who had a relation in a nursing home to see such abuse and mistreatment. What we saw was vulnerable people left without basic care as the homes had an inadequate supply of basic items such as bedsheets, towels, sanitary wipes and gloves. We saw others, quite disgracefully, being roughly handled.”
“Rather, we should wait until we have the full detail of what has been negotiated. I propose that Ireland should be a part of those conversations at all levels. Then we can make a decision with full knowledge. If it is in the best interests of the Irish people, the Members of the House will be able to discuss the issue with full knowledge, which we do not have currently.”
“If beneficiaries of temporary protection are from a part of Ukraine that is not suffering from the war and want to return home, we should be assisting them to do so. We must find a permanent mechanism to deal with people from all other parts of Ukraine who have come here and been welcomed by the Irish people either through our international protection system or our work permit system to ensure a resolution. I am calling on the Minister to start acting in Ireland's interests and not to go along an EU trajectory for the sake of it or to be able to say we are doing something. Above all, I am asking the Government to stand up for Irish sovereignty. I am calling on the Government not to opt into this European Council decision authorising the opening of negotiations on an agreement between the EU and Kazakhstan under Article 3.”
“We have said that the Irish Government should not support moves to extend the temporary protection directive to 2027. That will be five years after the war started, which cannot be described as temporary. We need a planned end to the temporary directives. We need the Government to bring forward a roadmap for the end of the directive that gives Ukrainians certainty about their future in Ireland or what supports for returning home are available for those who want to do so. Several years after the outbreak of a war when an emergency approach was taken with the support of the Members of this House across the board, the temporary short-term approach must conclude. There should be a return to the application of ordinary permanent migration rules as they apply to refugees and asylum seekers from other states.”
“We will not have the flexibility that future Ministers for justice might need because EU decisions on migration policy will not always consider Ireland's unique circumstances, as I have set out, and will not always be in our best interests. To give an example, it has been reported today that the Irish Government intends, when the EU justice and home affairs ministers meet later this week, to support the proposal to extend for another year, to 2027, the European temporary protection directive for people fleeing the war in Ukraine. That has implications for Ireland and yet there has been no discussion on that point in the Oireachtas. We have been of the view that continually extending temporary measures is not a sustainable solution and is problematic for everyone.”
“It is, therefore, our view, based on what we know and, just as importantly, what we do not know due to the restricted nature of the proposal before us, that it would be much more appropriate for the Dáil to debate whether we should opt into any agreement with Kazakhstan under Article 4, which would then allow us to enter the process at a later stage when we know precisely what we are voting for. That is what this House is entitled to and what the Irish people would expect. The difficulty I have in a wider sense is with the Government's moves to outsource migration policy to the EU. That undermines our sovereignty and means that decisions taken at an EU level could have serious implications for Ireland.”
“We in Sinn Féin are concerned about the wider implications of opting in to Article 3 negotiations, especially when we do not have full information on what is being negotiated by the EU with Kazakhstan. The Minister argued it is beneficial to opt in under Article 3 but during previous debates in which we discussed Article 4 opt-ins, Ministers have come before the Dáil and advocated opting in to measures under Article 4, when we know what we are voting for, and they have said we were not prevented or locked out of the process. The EU obviously knows an Article 4 opt-in might be likely so it has told the Dáil that Irish negotiators were part of the discussions throughout.”
“21, as the Minister of State set out, Ireland can opt in within three months of the proposal being presented to the Council or - and this is crucial - can opt in under Article 4 at any time after a proposal's adoption. Article 29.4.7° of the Constitution requires Oireachtas approval for an opt-in. Under Article 3, the argument goes, we get to participate in negotiations and vote on the measure, but under Article 3 we are also bound by the outcome which is decided by qualified majority voting. We could end up with an outcome we do not agree with. Ireland has no veto and could be bound by the resulting measures, even if they run contrary to our national interests.”
“This is a significant discrepancy and shows this is being rushed out of a desire to please the EU without even the Minister being clear as to what exactly we are being asked to endorse. I accept a readmission agreement with Kazakhstan may not seem to be a huge issue, especially considering the small numbers of nationals of Kazakhstan who have come here in recent years. In committee the Minister indicated 12 in total since 2019 had sought international protection; only one person has been subject to a deportation order. However, it clearly impacts on larger numbers when it is related to third country nationals and stateless persons. Under Article 3 of Protocol No.”
“In terms of the proposal before us today, I have said Members of the Oireachtas do not have the full information and the public has even less. The senior Minister himself appears unclear on the contents of the proposal. When he came before the justice committee and briefed members on 29 May, he stated categorically that this just related to citizens of Kazakhstan. In fact, he said that three times when I questioned him on it. However, the briefing note circulated by the Whip's office mentions third country nationals and stateless persons, as well as facilitating the transit of persons being returned to a third country. That is completely contradictory to what the Minister told the committee.”
“I was surprised when the Minister for justice suggested in the committee that perhaps one of the reasons Kazakhstan would enter this was that it, a central Asian state, may want to become an accession state at some stage. There is a real need for discussion about what the EU is and what it is becoming. Any expansion into central Asia would be a little absurd. Sinn Féin has been clear the European Union should proceed with further expansion only where it does not undermine the position and influence of existing member states, particularly small, peripheral states such as Ireland. Certainly, such expansion should not be used as an excuse to further remove unanimity or representation within the European Commission.”
“Essentially, we have been given a cover note and are asked to endorse a negotiation based on an annexe which Members do not have sight of. That is dangerous in the extreme, regardless of the basis for the negotiation. I am shocked any Minister, never mind a Fianna Fáil Minister for justice, would bring such a proposal to this House. I was very surprised that we can get no clarity on what is on the table from a European perspective. We do not know what is being offered to Kazakhstan in terms of funding or other benefits in this negotiation. Is there going to be a cost? There has to be something in it for Kazakhstan. The notion Kazakhstan has an issue with EU citizens in its territory that it wants to return is far-fetched.”
“That is a very weak argument in favour of something for which full information is denied to Members of the Oireachtas and to the Irish people, considering we can opt in to this at a later stage when we have further detail and the full facts can be divulged. We are expected to decide on this motion despite the restricted nature of it. We are being asked to endorse something we, as elected representatives in the Parliament of a sovereign State, are not being given details of. If somebody suggested this scenario at the time of the European treaty debates we have mentioned, they would have been laughed at and described as far-fetched exaggerators. I have a hard copy of what Members of the Oireachtas have been given: one page with virtually no detail. Crucially, it says the negotiating directives are set out in the annexe to the decision.”
“We have learned from our years of EU membership that once we cede sovereignty, we do not get it back. We have to be cognisant of the implications for sovereignty of proposals such as that before us today on the review of Protocol No. 21. We must be aware of Ireland's situation, which is unique in Europe. We are a common law jurisdiction and part of a common travel area on an island that is partitioned and part of which is still under British rule. What the European Commission is seeking might be put in simple terms, as the Minister of State has put it, as a mandate to negotiate an agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Kazakhstan on readmission. The Government argues that opting in at this stage would further demonstrate Ireland's commitment to a common EU-wide solution to migration.”
“The protocol provides Ireland with an opt-out and a choice to opt in to legislation governing the areas of freedom, security and justice on a case-by-case basis. They are crucial protections for Ireland. Without these explicit protections and protocols, there is every reason to believe the people of this State would not have endorsed the Lisbon treaty when it was put to them a second time. The Department of justice recently published a review of the operation of Protocol No. 21. I think the approach today is related to that review and its publication. The review suggests some moves away from the spirit of the protocol. In particular, the retrospective review of all Protocol No. 21 opt-outs, to see if Ireland can opt in to things it has previously stayed out of, suggests a subtle but important, and perhaps dangerous, change in approach.”
“We must be on guard against mission creep from the EU, which further undermines Irish sovereignty, and against attempts to undermine protections that were crucial to Ireland's signing up to treaties involving further and deeper integration. We should recall Ireland voted against two EU treaties in referendums: the Treaty of Nice in 2001 and the Lisbon treaty in 2008. At the heart of both of these rejections was the fear of a loss of sovereignty on key issues of concern to the Irish people. Those concerns are just as important and valid today as when the treaties were being debated, if not more so. Protocol No. 21 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union came into effect in its current form with the Lisbon treaty in December 2009.”
“We should not do something simply because the EU wants us to do it or to ingratiate ourselves with the EU. We should only act if it is in Ireland's best interests to do so. To decide whether something is in Ireland's best interests, the Oireachtas has to have all the facts. It is also our job to ensure protocols put into EU treaties, including the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, better known as the Lisbon treaty, reflect the concerns of the Irish people and that those concerns are respected and not watered down over time. Protecting and maximising Irish sovereignty in the context of EU integration is important.”
“Sinn Féin is concerned about this proposal, but more concerned about the approach being taken. What is essentially being asked, uniquely in my experience, is that the Oireachtas is expected to rubber-stamp a motion without having sight of the actual proposal. This is unprecedented. I consider it an insult to a sovereign Parliament. While members of the committee were briefed on and provided with hard copies of the draft Council resolution, the resolution, as the Minister of State knows, contained virtually no information. We have no information on what funding or other benefits the EU is offering Kazakhstan as part of the negotiations. While Members of the Dáil have very little information, the public has even less. This is a sovereign Parliament and it is our job to stand up and defend Irish sovereignty.”
“Cuirim fáilte roimh an Aire Stáit. At the outset I say that Sinn Féin recognises that return and readmission agreements are a crucial part of having a managed migration system. We have been clear that where any person is not entitled to be in Ireland, they should be returned safely, and deportation orders should be both enforced and tracked. Such return and readmission agreements can be done on a bilateral basis, so they are not required to be negotiated by the European Union on behalf of Ireland. In respect of Kazakhstan, it is notable that Germany, the Netherlands, Poland and Switzerland currently have such bilateral agreements. What we are debating today is a motion to opt into a European Council decision authorising the opening of negotiations for a readmission agreement between the EU and Kazakhstan.”
“I urge the Minister to check what he said in this Dáil about the reports that have been produced because the most substantive of them described undergrounding of the interconnector as a credible option, which is the opposite of what the Minister said here. I encourage the Minister to look at that and revert. The only question I would put to him is whether he will meet the campaigning groups on the ground to get a full sense of the challenges of presenting this project through overhead power lines because it is not going to happen on the current trajectory?”
“I reaffirm everything Deputy O'Rourke said. The statement read by the Minister could have been read by every single Minister for the environment since 2006 when this project was mooted. Since 2006, Minister after Minister has devolved this issue entirely to EirGrid and said it was an operational matter and since 2006, EirGrid has made a mess of this. The Minister said he will not apportion blame. I will apportion blame to the pigheadedness of EirGrid. It is a model exercise in how not to deliver public infrastructure projects because it has failed and refused to engage with communities and the facts as they are developing.”
“That is a problem because it not the best option environmentally and it is preventing us from reaching what the Minister of State has stated is his objective, namely, to have more of the plastic recycled in Ireland. Will he engage with the domestic industry and with Repak to end this absolute scandal?”
“I do not know how the Minister of State can say Ireland leads the way on plastics recycling when, in fact, we are leading the way in shipping those materials all over the world. We need to build capacity. As I mentioned, Shabra Plastics and Recycling can do a large part of the work and could do it all if it puts in a pellet production line. That would involve a huge investment, however, and the company would have to have enough plastic coming in do it. I hope the Minister of State accepts the real difficulty is that the plastic is achieving more money elsewhere. Repak is selling it to the highest bidder without any environmental consideration.”
“It is regrettable that the figures the Minister of State gave a date from before the introduction of the deposit return scheme. The information I have is that by the end of this month, 17,000 tonnes of plastic will have been collected under the scheme but only 3,400 tonnes of that will have been brought to a factory in the State. I mentioned previously to the Tánaiste in the House that Shabra Plastics and Recycling, a company in my constituency, can do a large part of the work. The process involves the bottles being washed, flaked, pelleted and then returned as bottles. Shabra can do the first two parts, that is, washing and flaking. The immediate environmental benefit from this is that four lorry loads of plastic bottles become three lorry loads of flakes.”
“The deposit return scheme is well known to people, sometimes for the hassle of it and sometimes for the economic benefit of it. A huge proportion of the plastic that is collected under the scheme is shipped as waste plastic out of Ireland even though there is at least one company in this State that could manage quite a large part of the process. Is the Minister of State making efforts to ensure a greater proportion of the plastic that is collected is recycled in Ireland?”
“It will just make the lives of my neighbours - families in rural communities who have no choice but to use their cars every day to drop their children to school or to go to work and who have no choice but to use the home heating system in their home - harder. I do not know why the collective that makes up the Government - Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael and now the Rural Independent Group - simply cannot understand and appreciate that.”
“I really would appreciate a bit of honesty from the Government. It is not true to say that the carbon tax is ring-fenced. The Comptroller and Auditor General confirmed that he could account for about 61% of it and be assured that it was going towards environmental measures. As with all Government decisions, taxes are collected and decisions are made as to how they are spent, so to say that we need the carbon tax to pay for environmental schemes probably sets out how committed the Government is to those environmental schemes in the first place. The Minister can talk about mitigating measures and alleviating measures that are in place but carbon tax will not do anything for the environment.”
“This is a revenue-collecting measure that disproportionately affects working-class, poorer and rural households. Does the Minister accept and appreciate just how bizarre this situation is? Will he finally see sense and engage constructively in order that we can tackle environmental challenges without fleecing ordinary workers and families?”
“The carbon tax is unique. There is nowhere else we can point to in the current budget where we can say with certainty, "This is what the Government plans to do". We cannot tell pensioners where their pension will be in five years' time but we can tell them by how much precisely Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael and those champions of rural Ireland, the Healy-Raes et al., are going to increase the cost of heating their home. We cannot tell motorists how much money will be given to fund the roads network or precisely how much will go to improving transport connectivity, but we can tell them exactly how much money will be added to the cost of driving to work. The worst is that none of this actually works. The money is not ring-fenced, despite what the Government protests.”
“Will the Minister outline the amount by which he intends to increase the carbon tax during the course of the Government's term, setting out clearly what that will mean for families and workers facing a cost-of-living crisis?”
“Given that the projected spend on IPAS accommodation for this year is going to be €1.2 billion, will the Government ensure that there are mechanisms in place to ensure that we do not have this type of extravagant profiteering?”
“The Ceann Comhairle may have seen reports that two directors of Igo Café, which is one of the largest beneficiaries of State contracts for the provision of IPAS accommodation, paid themselves €4.6 million last year. It appears these revelations may be just the tip of the iceberg in terms of some of the profiteering happening in the provision of IPAS accommodation. People are literally becoming millionaires through the provision of State contracts. However, we know that HIQA inspections have found that in some cases, the accommodation that is being provided is cramped, damp and overcrowded. Does the Taoiseach think it is acceptable or does he accept that it is unacceptable that the directors of such a company would be getting a pay bonanza, essentially, of €4.6 million in a given year from taxpayer funds?”
“Likewise, Steadfast House in Carrickmacross provides crucial supports for people with disabilities. It also has plans to expand its services. Will the Minister of State give assurances that she will ensure these applications are dealt with quickly and positively?”
“There are a number of points in the Minister of State's written response that I will deal with. The interim respite centre for children in County Monaghan is very welcome. I know that interim centre was put in place pending a permanent respite centre. Will the Minister of State give an update on the permanent respite centre? I suggest that, when that permanent centre is opened, the interim centre also be made permanent because the demand is of such a level. The Minister of State mentioned the Errigal Truagh Special Needs Centre. It is a hugely impressive centre started by a group of volunteers in north Monaghan. They have made applications for capital funding to the Department in order to expand their services and I encourage the Minister of State ensures that happens.”
“I thank the Minister of State. The truth of the matter is that disability services in my constituency are an actual embarrassment. I am embarrassed, as an elected representative, when dealing with parents who are at their absolute wits' end trying to be all things to their children. As well as being parents, they are also expected in some cases to be teachers. They are absolutely expected to be OTs, speech and language therapists and physiotherapists. There is a clear problem in getting appointments. There is also a clear problem that, when people have no choice, have reached their absolute limits and seek private care for their children to access those services, they are substantially financially impacted, yet the Department has not made any supports available to families in those instances.”
“I do not know if this is across every CDNT but certainly, in the two I am aware of, there are huge and substantive gaps that are resulting in a situation that means even if the posts were to be filled tomorrow we would have backlogs that would last for years. There is a need for direct intervention from the Department and the HSE to ensure those blatant gaps are addressed. I do not think it is fair to expect CDNT managers, who are dealing with all these families while at the same time trying to fill staff gaps when they emerge, to also have a holistic eye to the long term, which is what is required if we are going to get a handle of this situation.”