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 27 of 30.
“The principle of juries was established in the first place throughout the common law system. In that system today, the role of juries in many civil matters has been diminished or, in some cases, virtually abolished. However, if we are to move as the Government proposes in this area, we will be a complete outlier in respect of defamation cases and juries. I am trying to break down the Minister's arguments against the amendment to delete this section. The first issue he mentioned was delays. Of course we want to reduce delays. Appointing and swearing in a jury takes time. There have to be opening statements and the jury then has to deliberate. However, it is disingenuous in the extreme, and I think the Minister knows it, to suggest juries are the reason for the delays in our Courts Service.”
“That is moving off point a little bit but it is not being flippant about it. It is to say that media have a big responsibility and they are not always held legally accountable. I have seen articles written that were untrue but to prove they were defamatory would be difficult. That gets to the crux of why this is different from other civil cases the Minister has spoken about. Nobody can make an adjudication as to whether in the eyes of reasonable people somebody has been defamed better than a jury of one's peers. Judges have a very important role and do a very important job but they are removed from lived realties. Due to the circumstances in which they operate and the incomes they have, they cannot be described as reflective of society as a whole. That is with no disrespect to our esteemed Judiciary.”
“I reflect on a very delicate time in the peace process when a number of lazy journalists figured out that a good way of writing headlines was to say senior members of my party were accused of being informers. Those were downright lies, and at a time when it put people's lives at risk. They could not actually take a case for defamation because, in the eyes of the law, there is no distinction between British agents in a time of conflict or legal authorities in this State or elsewhere. It is not considered to be demeaning to your character if you are accused of assisting state authorities. Lies were able to be published ad nauseam and Sunday newspapers were competing against one another to see who could accuse the highest profile Sinn Féin representative or republican of being an informer, and they could get away with it.”
“On a number of aspects, the Minister misses the point the Opposition made and I find that disappointing considering, as has already been said, the Minister himself made virtually the same points we are making now. He understands as well as anyone, you would imagine, what it is that we are saying. Sometimes the public has the view that the media, including newspapers and broadcasters, cannot publish lies. That is not what the law says. Media can, and on occasion do, publish lies. The law sets a high bar for somebody to take a case that he or she was defamed. The definition of "defamation", though not a legal definition, is essentially that it is the publication of an untrue statement that reasonable members of the public would think damages one's reputation. That is very different from publishing lies.”
“Yes, the definition of a "periodical". It is a small point but I omitted to talk about it when we were skipping through section 3 and I want to put it on the record in case we table an amendment at a later stage. I do not know if the Minister intended them this way but I interpreted his words to mean he did not agree with this but was bound by collective government, the programme for Government and decisions previously made to pursue it. That is astonishing. Of course, a Minister can bring a recommendation to Government that, on balance, a recommendation made by a previous Minister is not only contrary to the current Minister's belief but also that being dogged in the pursuit of that particular provision prevents the Dáil collectively from moving forward with reformed defamation laws. That is very disappointing.”
“Will the Minister speak to this? Is it something he has considered since his appointment as Minister? Would he be in favour of it? If time allowed, would he be willing to look at a definition on later Stages? Essentially, does he plan to return to it?”
“I thank the Leas-Cheann Comhairle. I ask his indulgence because we were rushing at the start and skipped over sections. I want not to oppose section 3 but to ask the Minister for clarification on a point. One of the other recommendations in the report of the pre-legislative scrutiny from the justice committee of the previous Dáil was that the definition of "periodical" should be made clearer, specifically regarding whether publications from broadcasters - say, the RTÉ website - would come under the remit of the Press Council or Coimisiún na Meán. The Oireachtas Library and Research Service produced a comprehensive review of the Bill versus the pre-legislative scrutiny report. In the review, it pointed to it not having been possible to include such a provision due to a lack of stakeholder agreement at the time.”
“Is the Minister open to reconsidering his approach to the outright gutting of the role of ordinary people serving on juries and making determinations as to whether defamation has occurred? Is he willing to have discussions on later Stages of the Bill? Like his predecessor, is he intent on going ahead with this, knowing that if we resolve this issue alone, we could easily come to a consensus and have a Bill that has the full support of this House? I urge the Minister to consider his approach carefully.”
“Going back to the committee deliberations, everyone is open to having a discussion on how we deal with that issue without removing juries entirely. Perhaps juries could make determinations but we could restrict adjudication on the quantum of rewards to the Judiciary. There is space to address what Government says is the primary issue without throwing the baby out with the bath water or, as somebody said, taking a sledgehammer to a screw. Unfortunately, I have noticed a tendency across a number of governments that, as opposed to fixing an issue, they ban it, get rid of it or overcorrect it. I have seen this time and again when Government Departments delay EU directives, for example, and then the simple solution is to just ban a practice when a number of member states might simply adjust.”
“I was not part of the pre-legislative scrutiny deliberations, but having read the transcripts of the Oireachtas committee and the final pre-legislative scrutiny report, the importance of members of the public determining in issues relating to damage to reputation and freedom of expression was very clearly highlighted by both the Bar Council and the Law Society. This holds weight and seems like eminent common sense. In adjudicating whether a person's reputation is damaged, who better to pass that judgment than a jury of one's peers? Of course, nobody is suggesting the current system works perfectly. It is fair to say it does not always, particularly when it comes to the provision of damages. That seems to be the Government's argument, namely, that juries award damages inconsistently and sometimes excessively.”
“The Ceann Comhairle is far too efficient for my liking. I will propose the deletion of the entire section. Section 4 relates to the role of the jury in High Court defamation actions. It would be important if the Minister could give us clarity on whether he is planning to proceed with this section in its entirety. I put on the record very strongly that Sinn Féin is opposed to the removal of juries from High Court defamation cases as a matter of principle and we will not be able to support the Bill if this remains the Minister's position. It is important to put on the record that our opinion is shared by many in the legal profession. It would leave Ireland as a complete outlier in common law jurisdictions globally.”
“However, we have to focus equally on what is driving people into insolvency. The cost of living and the cost of doing business must be addressed and there must be a crackdown on vulture funds to ensure they are forced to provide interest rates at the same levels as banks. The Government needs to ensure that all mortgage holders who have played by the rules have the right to transfer back to the banks regardless of the status of their mortgages. Otherwise, all we will have to offer those people is assurance that any future insolvency they may have will be recognised in Malta, Luxembourg or another EU member state. We have to do everything in our gift to ensure that businesses and families are prevented from entering insolvency, wherever possible.”
“When I was a Member of the European Parliament, I campaigned strongly against a proposed vulture fund directive. This was a proposal from the Commission to develop a secondary market for loans, whether they were performing or not. It is disgraceful that the proposal was supported by the Irish Government. At that time, I warned about the dangers of moving hundreds of billions of euro of bad debt into the shadow banking sector through the securitisation of non-performing loans. That approach is incredibly misguided and I warned that it would cause major new risks to financial stability. After all, mortgage-backed securities played a key role in the 2007-08 crisis. I welcome the updating of the regulation that facilitates mutual recognition of insolvency across European Union member states.”
“The banks gave these people loans but, when the banks got into trouble, they off-loaded the loans to vulture funds at a significant discount. Those same vulture funds have been fleecing those customers ever since. Those people are now being charged absolutely crazy sums of money. Many of them are suffering as a result of that greed. That greed has been facilitated by the inaction of successive Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael governments. Scrutiny of proposals coming from the European Union is crucial because what the European Union does is not always in Ireland's best interests. We learned that the hard way during the banking crisis when the European Central Bank and European Commission were quick to burden Irish people with 42% of Europe's bank debt.”
“It particularly impacts on the 27% of people who managed to work themselves out of arrears and get their mortgage back on track since the financial crash and who are now facing an undue financial burden because they have been forced back into arrears arising from exorbitantly high interest rates. More than 100,000 struggling mortgage holders are paying interest rates of 6%. Some 7,000 of these are paying interest rates of more than 8.5%. These are the people whose mortgages were sold off during the austerity years and who, through sheer grit and playing by every rule, managed to get themselves back on a solid footing but who once more find themselves in a precarious position as result of the greed of vultures.”
“It is clear that, where insolvency is involved, successive governments have left ordinary people at the back of the queue because, despite the Government having made some improvements for workers via the Employment (Collective Redundancies and Miscellaneous Provisions) and Companies (Amendment) Act 2024, a crucial area that remains unaddressed is that of workers being treated as unsecured creditors for the purposes of collectively bargained redundancy agreements. The Government's failure to reform and rebalance our own insolvency framework continues to have real-life consequences for people today.”
“In effect, it limited the ability of people, particularly ordinary people, to enlist the aid of a barrister in taking the fight to the banks. Sinn Féin opposed this measure and highlighted the fact that, when people actually brought the banks to court, they won nearly two thirds of the time. This lays bare the fact that this measure was intended to disarm ordinary people and to protect the banks.”
“I note the original 2015 regulation applies to both companies and legal persons and that it specifically states that "The scope of this Regulation should extend to proceedings which promote the rescue of economically viable but distressed businesses" and give them a second chance when needed. That is a worthy endeavour. Mutual recognition being the purpose of the regulation and given that the foundation of this regulation is to support that second chance, it is a shame that, in 2019, the Government approved changes to legal aid in personal insolvency cases, removing a debtor's automatic right to funding for a barrister. The Minister may recall that my party colleague, the Sinn Féin spokesperson on Finance, Deputy Doherty, described this as an attack on the most vulnerable and a coup for the banks and the vulture funds.”
“When discussing insolvency, we cannot avoid discussing what is actually driving insolvency for both businesses and individuals. This includes the high cost of living, the cost of insurance, the cost of rent and sky-high utility bills in this State, all of which the Government has failed to tackle. These costs are the reason so many businesses are struggling, which unfortunately leads to many subsequently facing insolvency. In addition, we have the specific problems caused by the failure to crack down on vulture funds. Recent Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael governments have not changed our insolvency framework for the better.”
“I thank the Minister for the update. The opt-in before us facilitates the mutual recognition of changing insolvency practices in different European Union member states. As Ireland and other EU member states update, adjust or develop different civil mechanisms, it is generally right that we should continue to facilitate mutual recognition. Sinn Féin will be supporting this opt-in as we believe that, where such mutual recognition exists today, ordinary people and businesses should continue to avail of its benefits. However, I appeal to the Minister to bring any such opt-in proposals before the House in a timely manner so as not to deny needed scrutiny at any stage for the sake of expediency, which is usually necessitated by Government delays in bringing forward proposals.”
“Both the GRA and the AGSI have raised serious questions about the new Garda operating model. Clearly, that model is undermined by the fact there are far too few gardaí to operate it. That is particularly the case with community gardaí. There were only 700 community gardaí at the end of last year compared with over 1,100 at the end of 2011. The Garda has raised serious issues and must be listened to. It is very regrettable therefore that the Minister for Justice boycotted the GRA annual conference this week. Does the Taoiseach accept that this was a mistake on the part of the Minister? Will he ensure that the Government will work with rank-and-file members of an Garda on an operating model that works for them and for the communities they serve?”
“What Uisce Éireann does tell us, however, is that it needs a further €2 billion in capital funding in order to address the capacity issues in towns like Kingscourt. Unless the Government provides the funding needed, all its rhetoric on housing counts for nothing, all the protestations from Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael reps about individual plants in counties like Cavan and Monaghan count for nothing, and families in need of housing and local developers eager to provide it will continue to be left waiting. It is time for the Government to get its act together.”
“They are willing - indeed, eager - to provide desperately needed homes for the local community but they are in deadlock, not because of the local authority, not because of any opposition, but because the local wastewater treatment plant is awaiting an upgrade and no development can happen until the upgrade is complete. One would imagine that a Government that claims that housing is the social issue of this generation would be moving heaven and earth to sort this out. Not so, I am afraid. To give an example, in the town of Kingscourt there is a huge demand for housing, both public and private. I am dealing with one developer with a plan to provide some of these houses but the wastewater plant needs an upgrade. When will it happen? Who knows. The local authority cannot tell the developer and Uisce Éireann, it seems, just will not tell.”
“The consequences of Government failures on housing are well rehearsed. We have record rents, record homelessness and house prices going up every month, pushing more and more families and workers to the point where homeownership is but a pipe dream. The clear reasons for this are the policies enacted by Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael, but some of the reasons are less evident. For example, some people are surprised to hear of towns and villages in Monaghan, Cavan and elsewhere where local developers have sites ready to go, plans in place, workers in place and customers on standby.”
“There will be 18 places in September, which I acknowledge is 18 more than last year. That is very welcome. We need the plans for the permanent school to start right now, however. We need the Minister of State to promise – and I have to say this again - that every child who needs a place in the special school in Monaghan will actually get one. I urge the Minister of State to bring himself to a position where he can make that promise as soon as possible.”
“As the Minister of State is aware, parents slept outside the gates of Leinster House last week demanding the most basic of human rights, that is, a school place for their child. I met them. I do not know whether the Minister of State got the opportunity to do so but if he did, he would have heard horror stories of children being left behind by the Government and a failed system. I was particularly disturbed to hear from areas where interim schools were established many years ago on the promise of a permanent school that has yet to come, resulting in inadequate capacity in sometimes unsuitable premises. That will not be tolerated in Monaghan, just as it should not be tolerated or accepted anywhere. The fight to deliver this school went on for far too long already.”
“It is critically important the Minister of State gives us an assurance now that families will not have to start campaigning again before the new school is even open to ensure sufficient capacity at that school.”
“I congratulate the Minister of State on his appointment. To give him some background, last January, I organised a public meeting for families and children with disabilities. We were specifically told by the NCSE at that stage that there were no plans for a special school in Monaghan. For months thereafter, we were told there was a process to decide the locations of special schools, yet no one could ever outline what the process involved or any of the criteria that would apply. Finally, in the mouth of a general election, an announcement was made. It is clear that the process and the criteria came down to political pressure. The Minister of State has stated that the special school will initially admit 18 students. Can he clarify how many applications were received on the deadline last week?”
“This time last year, we were told there was no need for a special school in County Monaghan. It took a sustained and dignified campaign by families of children with disabilities, which others and I were proud to support, to lead to the announcement that an interim special school would open in Castleblayney this coming September. Will the Minister of State give an assurance that every child that needs a place in that school will receive one?”
“Can he let the Dáil know whether he is satisfied that the facts contained in the report are true, and if so, what action will be taken to address this serious issue?”
“The Taoiseach may have seen reports in the Irish Daily Mail on protected disclosure which detail how confiscated weapons, including automatic firearms, ammunition and explosives, were being held at Garda headquarters in a container secured by a very simple combination lock. The report suggests that much of the weaponry is undocumented and therefore untraceable. Does the Taoiseach agree that this type of system creates a real risk of these weapons making their way back into the hands of organised criminals? We know that a pump-action shotgun that was originally seized from one criminal gang in 2009 was later seized from another criminal gang in 2023. The newspaper report suggests that the Taoiseach has had sight of the protected disclosure.”
“I hope the Minister for Justice will finally recognise this and act on it. Of course, we cannot simply police our way to safer communities, but likewise, we cannot build safer communities without adequate policing. Therefore, the responses to these issues have to be targeted, multifaceted, visionary and community centred. The Government is failing on all fronts at the moment.”
“We also want to see the programme extended to those aged up to 24, in line with international best practice. Before concluding, I want to address the role of community gardaí. These are the gardaí who know the communities that they serve in and the young people in those communities. They are the gardaí whose job it is to build relationships in the community, be approachable and develop positive relationships with young people in particular while also being visible on the ground. When we look at the increased levels of juvenile crime and antisocial behaviour, we cannot ignore what has happened with community gardaí. There were only 700 community gardaí in the State at the end of last year compared with 1,113 at the end of 2011. At a minimum, we need an additional 500 community gardaí.”
“Unless the Government puts funding into communities, youth outreach programmes, child and youth mental health services and sports facilities, particularly in deprived and disadvantaged communities, there is little point in us having debates like this. Looking at statistics on the educational attainment and skills of those who end up in our prisons, it is clear that supporting young people to stay in school and gain qualifications is a crucial part of any effort to divert them from crime. The educational welfare system needs to be properly resourced and staffed. We need to do much better at tackling recidivism and rehabilitating young people who become involved in crime. Sinn Féin wants to see the Garda youth diversion programme properly resourced and staffed, with sufficient Garda juvenile liaison officers in place.”
“The impact of cuts on community projects, youth services and regeneration projects that were implemented in the aftermath of the economic crash has never been fully examined and, more importantly, has never been fully redressed. Diverting young people from crime cannot be dealt with separately to how we address economic inequality and deprivation, how we invest in communities, including in housing and public services, and how we give every young person a sense of hope and the opportunity to achieve his or her full potential, no matter the young person's background or class. That means access to housing, education, training, services, facilities and job opportunities.”
“We have seen sharp increases in reports of theft, robbery, fraud and sexual offences by teenagers. The increase in sexual crimes by young people is a stand-alone and complex problem that needs to be addressed, including through understanding the reasons behind this increase and the role of education, parents and social media. The rise in juvenile crime across the board shows that Government policy is currently failing. These failures are a result of a combination of cuts that were implemented over the past 15 years, failure to invest in communities, failure to invest in youth outreach programmes and in child and youth mental health services, and of course the dramatic reduction in the number of community gardaí.”
“Is ábhar tábhachtach é seo. Caithfimid níos mó a dhéanamh chun stop a chur le daoine óga a bheith páirteach sa choiriúlacht. Ensuring that young people are not drawn into criminality is a crucial part of any effort to reduce crime and antisocial behaviour and make our communities safer. There are two elements to this. First is ensuring that as many young people as possible never actually become involved in criminal activity. The second is ensuring that those who do are rehabilitated and do not engage in further criminality. In particular, we need to ensure that public policy supports those young people who are vulnerable because of difficult upbringings, mental health issues, addiction issues, deprivation and poverty, as well as those who are leaving the care of the State. Juvenile crime levels have risen in recent years.”
“To be clear, my question relates to the illegal Israeli settlements, so there is no need to make any distinction. The ICJ ruling is very clear. It prohibits the trade of goods and services with those illegal Israeli settlements. The programme for Government commitment specifies goods. Will services also be included in the ambition of the Bill? I ask the Minister for an answer to that question. If his answer is no, perhaps he will explain to the Dáil why not.”
“The question again is, does the Minister intend to bring forward legislation that will ban the trade of both goods and services with the illegal Israeli settlements?”
“One of the reasons we are in the situation we are in is that, for decades, Israel flagrantly breached international law and faced no consequences. If only we could get an understanding of why the world was able to turn a blind eye for so long, but the evidence is in how the world has turned away in large part from even a genocide unfolding before our eyes. According to the United Nations, eight days ago, while on a mission to rescue their colleagues who had been shot at by Israeli forces earlier in the day, 15 Palestinian rescue workers were murdered by Israel one by one - that is a direct quote - and buried in a mass grave. That is the State of Israel. The reason it does what it does is because it does not face any consequences.”
“The rulings of the International Court of Justice are very clear. They oblige states to prohibit the trade of goods and services with illegal Israeli settlements in the occupied territories. Will the Tánaiste outline the timeframe in which he will enact legislation and is such legislation intended to ban trade in both goods and services?”
“When a state actor such as the British State has within its possession information that could lead to some of those truths being uncovered but is withholding it, we need to raise our voice against it at every opportunity.”
“I again put on the record of the House our commendation for the Justice for the Forgotten group, without which I do not believe we would even have seen the progress we have. I acknowledge that, for many years, the victims' families and the survivors of the Dublin and Monaghan bombings were essentially ostracised. There were 30 years in this House when there was not even a parliamentary question submitted in respect of the Dublin and Monaghan bombings. I appreciate that we have now moved to a point where not only is there cross-party support, but there is unanimous all-party support in this House. However, we need to recognise that if we are truly to deal with reconciliation and address the legacy of the past, the full facts of the atrocities that were carried out must be divulged.”
“It is beyond disgraceful and scandalous that it continues to withhold information that would allow the families affected to get to the truth.”
“I thank the Ceann Comhairle for giving me the opportunity to speak. She will recall that, last year, I moved the fourth motion the Dáil has passed calling for every piece of available information to be fully divulged to all inquiries in respect of the Dublin and Monaghan bombings. I join in today's repeat of that call. Is the Tánaiste satisfied that State agencies in this State have also endeavoured to ensure that all information within their possession is divulged to the appropriate authorities? That needs to be crystallised. We cannot call on the British Government to do something we are not doing ourselves. Of course, the difficulty is that it is beyond doubt that the British Government colluded in the murder of citizens of this State in this capital city and in my own county of Monaghan.”
“That is what the Department is saying, whether I am saying it or not. That is what happened to tens of thousands who received letters of refusal. A lot of people were incredibly taken aback. This is designed as a hardship alleviation scheme rather than a compensation scheme. That language has been used by the Minister. Why then are so many people being forced to go through the rigmarole of providing receipts and documentary evidence to get what turns out in most cases to be a very small payment? He has got this wrong. I appeal to him to ensure these people receive a payment and some acknowledgement for the hardship they have gone through.”
“I have to take serious issue with the fact that the scheme has been refused to those people who cited what was the single greatest cost to them, which was the disregarding of frozen food or fresh food in their fridges. It is entirely disingenuous to say that those costs are not recoupable because they should normally be covered by home insurance, aside from the fact that some people just cannot afford home insurance. Any of us who do have a home insurance policy will quickly tell the Minister that on average there is an excess of €350. If people lose €350 worth of food from their freezer, and then with the resulting need to purchase food on a daily basis or to eat out because there is no power or water in their homes, the Minister is essentially saying tough luck.”
“I do not know whether the Minister appreciates it but for thousands of people in constituencies like mine, January and February were the first times that they ever had reason to interact with his Department. The overwhelming response I am getting from those people who did so is that was a negative experience. That has nothing to do with the staff of the Department who I acknowledge were incredibly busy. It was to do with false promises. The Government told people in the heat of the storm, when they were out of power and enduring all sorts of challenges, that it would support them. That has been reneged on. Many people applied for the humanitarian assistance scheme on the basis of a commitment given by Government that they would be supported. As I said, that was reneged on.”
“I remind him that the Dáil has twice, by majority decision, called for the establishment of a public inquiry into the case of Shane O'Farrell. I encourage the Minister to proceed on that basis.”
“Victims of serious crime have demanded action on this for many years. They want the bureaucratic delays addressed. They want to see the lack of transparency addressed and the inadequate recognition of victims' suffering to end. I call on the Minister to prioritise the criminal injuries compensation Bill, which is on the legislative schedule. We all recognise the important work the Garda does within our communities. We all recognise the esteem in which gardaí are predominantly held, but there are occasions when gardaí have acted in a manner that is unbecoming of the force. In such instances, there has to be accountability. These organisations need to have the power to demand that. We also need to go further. In the previous debate, the Minister set out the importance of respecting majority decisions made in this House.”