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 5 of 30.
“They then establish a governing body that can intervene in cases where there is a dispute or a company fails to comply. There is a particular responsibility from Ireland’s perspective because we have such a large IT sector. This means there will potentially be a huge number of such applications. The Department’s own guidance note states that over 600 service providers based in Ireland are expected to be designated as an addressee in Ireland. It is anticipated that the number of production orders issued to service providers based in Ireland will well exceed 300,000 annually. That is a complete outlier. In contrast, Irish authorities are expected to send 2,000 requests to others.”
“1 seeks to insert the following into section 8: The Minister, having consulted with the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, may by regulation direct that the Director suspend cooperation, in part or in full, with a state in breach of— (a) the Rule of Law Conditionality Regulation, or (b) Article 6 of the Treaty on European Union, or whereby cooperation would place Ireland in breach of Article 6 of the Treaty on European Union.”. The reason for this amendment is fairly straightforward. It is about protecting Irish interests and also the principles of the rule of law, democracy and our own sovereignty, when required. Essentially, the regulations we are dealing with here allow police services in any other European state to request, in the first instance, information in relation to criminal investigations from companies based here.”
“Amendments for this Stage had to be submitted before the Second Stage debate had taken place. That is no way to do business. It would be potentially excusable if this were a scenario where we were dealing with something that came out of the blue, but the Minister has been well aware of this legislation coming down the track for some time. I take the opportunity to congratulate the new Minister of State. I should have done that at the outset. I wish her well and look forward to working with her. Amendment No.”
“I move amendment No. 1: In page 10, between lines 33 and 34, to insert the following: "8. The Minister, having consulted with the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, may by regulation direct that the Director suspend cooperation, in part or in full, with a state in breach of— (a) the Rule of Law Conditionality Regulation, or (b) Article 6 of the Treaty on European Union, or whereby cooperation would place Ireland in breach of Article 6 of the Treaty on European Union.". I want to put on the record that I consider the way in which justice legislation is being dealt with on an ongoing basis to be inappropriate and unacceptable. We are literally just two minutes after voting on Second Stage of this legislation, yet here we are dealing with Committee Stage.”
“I thank all of those, including some of them who are in the Gallery and many others whom I have had the privilege of meeting. I acknowledge and recognise Deputy Coppinger's effort throughout all of this. I say this to my shame, but the first time that I became aware that this was an issue was when Deputy Coppinger brought a Private Members' Bill before this House. It is not too often on a Thursday late evening debate that you are moved by an issue, but I was moved by an issue. The argument appeared unassailable then and it is still unassailable as far as I am concerned. Even at this late stage, and we have the Stages in the Seanad and all of the rest of it, I implore the Minister to find a way to make all of those efforts worthwhile and find a way to ban a cruel and inhumane practice.”
“It proposes that, in the event of these types of notes being brought forward, there would be a very clear instruction to jurors that they are hearsay evidence. I hope that would dissuade some defence counsel from seeking them in the first place. However, what is actually needed is that full and unconditional ban. That is what the Oireachtas committee recommended. That is our job. We are tasked with analysing the heads of the Bill and bringing forward recommendations to the Minister. I express my sincere thanks for those people who have told their stories. I have mentioned this before. In order to save others from the trauma that they have gone through, they have told the world their most intimate details. They have gone beyond the counselling room to try to make that a safe place for others.”
“We have heard about the trauma of intimate details being shared. I will also speak briefly to amendment No. 24, which seeks to remove the Minister's wording "in the interests of justice". Again, we discussed this in quite a lot of detail on Committee Stage. Above all else, that amendment to the original Bill brought forward by the Minister is the cause of concern. We all know that solicitors and barristers are going to have an absolute field day discussing that wording. We know that term will allow some defence attorneys to secure the counselling notes of some victims. That is why we have brought forward that amendment. Amendment No. 25 is the last resort. It was submitted on the advice of Rape Crisis Ireland.”
“It is degrading treatment if a person discusses their most personal, intimate details with a professional only for that professional's notes, however elaborate or otherwise, to be demanded by the courts, the purveyors of justice in this State, to be used to defend the person who was the reason that person needed counselling in the first place. It is absolute lunacy. Banning the disclosure of counselling notes is about recognising that they are hearsay evidence. It is about rebalancing our justice system so that there is not only a fair trial but a fair justice system for victims and survivors. The amendment I have put forward, No. 18, provides for a full ban on the disclosure of counselling notes, because that is what is needed. We have discussed it at length. We have heard from victims and survivors.”
“Survivors have strongly asserted and told us that the practice of their counselling notes being used in criminal trials, potentially in defence of the person who attacked them, causes severe psychological harm and heightens suicide risk. That is the evidence we heard. I have not heard a single person disagree with the need to protect the right to a fair trial, but we also have a duty to victims and survivors. We must also keep that duty at the heart of our justice system. That includes not subjecting victims and survivors to degrading treatment. That is what this is.”
“This was a considered debate and discussion and all members of that committee agreed that there should be a complete and unconditional ban on the use of counselling records in sexual offence trials. We all have a responsibility in this area but, as Chairperson of that committee, I feel a particular responsibility to bring forward and stay true to that position and to outline how that decision was come to. Crucial to reaching that decision was listening to what victims and survivors had to say both through written testimony - there was quite extensive written testimony - and through oral evidence from organisations that have first-hand experience. I will particularly mention Hazel Behan, who addressed the committee and made a profound impact on all of us, leading to the position being agreed.”
“It seems a long time ago that the justice committee considered the heads of this criminal and civil law Bill. A lot more heads have been introduced since. One of our criticisms of the heads of the Bill was that there were huge aspects of the Bill we were not able to spend any time on. We did not get to deal with the sex-for-rent provisions and a whole load of other areas at all. We could only deal with written submissions. We discussed this aspect of the Bill quite a lot, however. There was cross-party agreement. The Minister will know that pre-legislative scrutiny reports sometimes get nodded through and that sometimes somebody proposes something without others realising.”
“(3) The Minister shall, as soon as practicable after the completion of a review under subsection (1), prepare and publish a report containing anonymised data relating to— (a) the number of occasions on which powers under sections 40A, 40B and 40C were exercised, (b) the general nature of the operations or deployments concerned, (c) the use of force in the exercise of those powers, and (d) any other information the Minister considers appropriate for ensuring transparency in the operation of this Part. (4) The Minister shall cause a copy of a report under this section to be laid before each House of the Oireachtas as soon as practicable after its publication.”.”.”
“I move amendment No. 14: In page 15, between lines 17 and 18, to insert the following: “Review and annual reporting on operation of Part IIIA 40D. (1) The Minister shall, in respect of each calendar year, carry out a review of the operation of this Part. (2) A review under subsection (1) shall include an assessment of the exercise of powers under sections 40A, 40B and 40C, including the frequency and circumstances of their use.”
“The primary reasons for that vote will be the manner in which this has been brought forward; the Minister's entire attitude towards this debate; and his decision - it was the Minister's decision - to curtail this entire debate. There is a myriad of measures involved here, with new provisions added at the last minute to a 90-minute debate.”
“I ask the Minister not to be disingenuous by talking about wanting to get to the counselling notes issue. He has been asked by two Members to ask the Chief Whip to come in to amend the Order of Business to give more time. I have decided against every instinct in my body not to call a vote on this amendment, which I think it is crucially important. The reason I am not going to call a vote is because of the people in the Gallery and their right to hear this House discuss a matter of utmost importance that has come about as a result of them telling us their personal testimonies. I ask the Minister not to be so disingenuous. However, I will be calling a final vote on this Bill, and I will be voting against it.”
“If those powers are needed, let us deal with them where they should be dealt with as part of a defence Bill where there can be proper scrutiny by the sectoral committee responsible for that and proper analysis of what exactly the Government is proposing and why. The Government should tell the Minister for Defence to bring forward a Bill that deals with that. Amendment No. 14 would require an annual report and review of these sections in the event that the Government refuses to accept amendment No. 13, to allow a bit of democratic scrutiny of something that is crucially important. It deals with the policing of protests and many other areas. There are huge concerns about this provision. It is not so much what is in the provision as why it has been brought forward in the manner it has been.”
“However, we also believe there has to be utmost accountability and transparency. There are serious concerns about what the Government and the justice and Defence Ministers are bringing forward and why they are doing it in the manner they are. The provisions on aid to civil power raise serious questions as to whether the Government, in an underhand way, is trying to amend the law so it can become common practice for the Defence Forces to be used for the policing of protests. We know An Garda Síochána is the primary civilian policing authority, and any Defence Forces support has to remain exceptional, timebound and tightly controlled. Amendment No. 13 proposes the deletion of the provision in the Bill regarding aid to civil power.”
“There has been no explanation as to what happened to bring this situation about. When the Minister for Defence was before the justice committee on Committee Stage, she was completely evasive or ignorant. She was certainly unable to answer specific questions on why now and what additionality would be allowed or provided to the Defence Forces that is currently not provided in law. We do not know where the impetus to make these changes came from at this time, and why they are being made in such a rushed manner as part of a miscellaneous Bill, which as we have already discussed, covers a huge range of unrelated matters. We have been clear in Sinn Féin. There are issues, particularly regarding our naval services, contained in these measures that we fully support. We support the concept in principle of aid to civil power.”
“I move amendment No. 13: In page 14, to delete lines 25 to 40, and in page 15, to delete lines 1 and 2. This amendment seeks to delete lines 25 to 40. Back in April at the height of what are now called the fuel protests, the Minister added fuel to a volatile situation. He essentially called for the Defence Forces to be deployed to assist gardaí in removing fuel protest blockades. It was a serious escalation and provocation at a time when the Government should have been focusing, and all Ministers, particularly the Minister for justice, should have been focusing on de-escalating the protests. We then had a situation a few weeks later. Out of the blue there were amendments brought forward by the Minister for Defence, added to the Minister for justice, to expand the deployment of Defence Forces under aid to civil power.”
“The Constitution has provision which protects unimpeded access to this House in order to fulfil our constitutional duties and I think it would send out the wrong signal if the Oireachtas was to pass legislation protecting Members of the Houses and not others. Returning to my point about time, this debate started 40 minutes ago. We have only 90 minutes to deal with a wide range of areas. I do not know if it is in order but will the Minister propose an amendment to the Order of Business to extend this debate to ensure that particularly the debate we all want to have on counselling notes will have sufficient time?”
“Unfortunately because of the way the Minister has framed this debate, a 90-minute debate is just not enough. It is not fair because there have already been lots of amendments which Deputies would have wished to speak for. I want to put on the record that I do not support Deputy Kelly’s amendment. Anybody who is preventing others by unlawful means, whether by obstructing them or impeding their freedom of movement, should be held to account before the law. It should not matter whether the person who is being impeded is a Member of the Oireachtas or not. I do not believe that in a republic you provide particular privileges to Members of the Houses.”
“During the AIDS crisis we know there was a stigma attached to homosexuality that meant little public support and often open hostility. In June 2018, the Government issued a formal apology, acknowledging that laws criminalising homosexuality were discriminatory, violated human dignity and caused significant harm to those affected. We have moved on. This is a welcome move but it should have happened long ago. There are different ways it should have been brought forward.”
“In the ten years leading up to the decriminalisation, the State had commenced criminal proceedings in 309 cases that resulted in 94 convictions. It is amazing that in our lifetime people were being convicted for their sexuality. It has to be said that for decades, gay men in Ireland lived under an repressive system that criminalised their identities and fostered widespread fear, isolation and persecution. We know that many gay Irish men felt they had no choice but to emigrate, and others felt they had no choice but to keep their sexual orientation a secret, sometimes for their whole life. At moments like this, we have to acknowledge what must have been profound hardship for people who were forced to live a lie their entire life. Criminalisation had a real and devastating consequence for many people.”
“On the issue of disregard of certain historical convictions, I will take this opportunity to commend my party colleague Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh, along with those from across the Opposition benches who have brought forward a Bill to provide for this. It would absolutely have made more sense for the Minister to work with his Opposition colleagues in facilitating that Bill rather than introducing these provisions at this late stage in its Dáil consideration. Aside from that, this issue should have been dealt with decades ago. Although homosexuality between consenting men was eventually decriminalised in 1993, there was little acknowledgement of the profound harm inflicted on generations of men who were convicted in the years prior to this.”
“I appeal to the Minister to not have a repeat of this situation, to stop the guillotine and the rushing, and to actually allow proper Dáil scrutiny of legislation. This debate focuses on the inclusion of provisions for the disregard of historical convictions for homosexual activity and the measures to give effect to amendments to the Rome statute, clarifying Ireland's obligation to co-operate with the International Criminal Court. I doubt if there will be an opposition voice against either. Therefore, it is regrettable that it has been brought in a manner which is itself, in my view, controversial.”
“I want to put on record that the way in which the Minister has handled this entire piece of legislation is in no way satisfactory, not even talking about the guillotine that is in place later on this evening. This is the second motion to instruct the committee we have had to the House where the Minister has added new and completely unrelated matters to a Bill that already covers a range of unrelated matters. Even the Title of the Bill has changed since we discussed it on Second Stage. Effectively what that means, and where the concern is, is there are matters within this Bill that have not been and will not be properly scrutinised by the Dáil, not as part of the pre-legislative scrutiny process and not as part of the justice committee's examination of the Bill.”
“At a time people are paying more and more in taxes and charges for the luxury of driving their cars, which is, in fact, a necessity, I ask the Taoiseach again: will he ensure that Cavan and Monaghan receive additional funding as a matter of urgency for our local road restoration and maintenance?”
“I wish to raise again the atrocious conditions of many roads in Counties Cavan and Monaghan. I have raised this with the Taoiseach on a number of occasions. He has responded by saying that his Fianna Fáil representatives have also raised this issue with him but, clearly, he has either not listened or his Cavan-Monaghan representatives are not effective. This year, the Government allocated less funding for local road restorations to Cavan and Monaghan than last year. Our local authorities are doing their best. They are trying to patch and stretch the funding but the funding simply is not enough.”
“The most bizarre aspect of the financial resolutions that have come before the House is the Government's commitment to increase the carbon tax every single year until 2030, despite the irrefutable evidence that carbon taxes hit lower income people and people from rural communities hardest. Carbon taxes charge people for not changing to something that does not exist. The people I and the Minister of State represent cannot afford a new car costing €50,000, whether they have an €8,000 grant or not. They rely on their petrol or diesel car to do everything, from driving to work to driving their kids to school in some instances or to activities they are involved in, yet the Government's choice, time and again, has been to kick them in the teeth rather than give them the support they need.”
“To this day, there has not been a single cent of a reduction in the price of home heating oil, despite the fact that there are TDs across the Government benches who, I have no doubt, are aware of people in their constituencies who have had empty tanks for months because they cannot afford to put oil in them. They are going cold because the Government refuses to provide them with any support whatsoever or take any meaningful measures. The average cost of diesel at one point in May, before the measures took effect, stood at €1.97. Today, the average cost of diesel is €1.88 a litre. It might be the Government's policy to have petrol and diesel at those prices on an ongoing basis, but they are too expensive for people who have no option but to use their cars to get to work. Green diesel costs nearly 50% more.”
“Then, when it introduced schemes in respect of contractors, it took far too long to bring clarity to how some of those measures would actually work. We have found out virtually every week since that there is another cohort in the business sector that was hopeful it would benefit from the rebate but which, it transpires, gets no benefit at all. It was for all of those reasons, and because of the failure to provide adequately or within an adequate timeframe, that Sinn Féin opposed the financial resolutions brought forward by the Government. All of this is a choice. We have had the choices of the Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael parties and Independent TDs. What were those choices?”
“The Bill the Minister of State has brought before the House in many ways represents everything that has been so wrong with the Government's approach to the fuel price crisis and to the broader cost-of-living crisis. Everything is too little, too late. It took far too long for the Government to listen and to accept and realise that ordinary workers, families, farmers, small businesses, coach drivers and hauliers had their backs to the wall and that people needed a bit of support and relief. The Government had to be dragged kicking and screaming to take any type of action at all. Of course when it did act, in typical Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael style it did far too little. What the Government did was insufficient.”
“I propose an amendment to the Order of Business under Standing Order 35(3) such that we would include in this week's Dáil schedule statements and questions on the EU Migration and Asylum Pact and the international protection system. A debate such as that would be useful, if only to fact-check the many misrepresentations the Taoiseach has made in this House, even today.”
“The Law Reform Commission published its report on compensating victims of crime. Does the Minister intend to apply the recommendations in that report, particularly the one relating to establishing a new statutory victims compensation scheme?”
“In that type of scenario I think the Minister is saying he recognises that type of testimony should be given on affidavit or in the witness box. Will he legislate to ensure that is the case?”
“Clearly when I talk about homicide I am not talking about murder but I have spoken to some victims who were in court for the sentencing of perpetrators who were convicted of actions resulting in the killing of their loved one and the introduction to the sentencing stage of unverified testimony not given under oath or by way of an affidavit really traumatised the family even further. This is often the case where somebody has pleaded guilty to an action that has resulted in the death of somebody else, so there is no trial as such. In many ways, the victims' families feel that perhaps the full truth has not come out about the actions of the person who is responsible and then ultimately, prior to sentencing, a number of testimonies are provided about how great a person this was.”
“In many respects the Minister has made the first half of the argument. My point is whether you move to the second logical part of the argument and expand the provisions of this section to include other serious crimes. I am thinking particularly of homicide. It has been seen in the courts that the distinction between somebody just writing a letter saying a particular man or woman is a sound person or whatever and knowing that is something that needs to be done on affidavit or potentially in the witness box is an important one. It sets out the importance of a character reference in any case but especially for serious crimes. Is there any examination in the Department of expanding the section even further?”
“Does the Minister intend to extend the provisions of section 14 of the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences and Human Trafficking) Act that requires character references to be given under oath, to criminal offences other than those included in the original legislation?”
“We can imagine how disruptive it is if the person who killed the father of your children is going to be released and all you get is a cold email. The onus should not be on victims to pursue these things, and we all agree on that. The review of section 8 is crucial.”
“I might not have been clear. I specifically asked about victims being informed that their attackers have deceased subsequent to release. In relation to section 8, the difficulty is that many of the testimonies we hear are inconsistent. Many victims have told me that they are incredibly happy with their engagement with the Garda or the Prison Service. Others are unhappy because they do not believe section 8 has been applied to the standard they would have expected in terms of their being informed of developments. I was told in one case by somebody who lost their partner, who was unlawfully killed, that the person responsible was to be released. They got a simple one-line email from the Prison Service informing them of the fact.”
“This is one anomaly that we could look at changing. It would only take a technical amendment to the legislation. Would the Minister be open to that?”
“To be clear, there is no requirement whatsoever to wait for an EU legislative process to conclude before we change measures in domestic law, particularly in terms of enhancing support for the victims of crime. The justice committee met in recent days to discuss the victims of crime civil protection orders Bill that I am trying to progress through the House. We heard moving testimony from Sonya Stokes, who the Minister is aware of. Sonya was the victim of horrendous crimes committed by a man who had previously committed several other horrendous crimes. Following his release, Sonya highlighted how traumatised she was and how fearful she was that some form of retribution would be sought. She found out on 30 April that her attacker had deceased in a nursing home on 5 December 2025. She was not informed of the fact.”
“Section 8 of the Criminal Justice (Victims of Crime) Act includes provisions for information to be shared with victims of crime. It is ten years since the legislation was enacted. Does the Minister have plans to review the operation of this section to ensure that the provisions it contains are being applied on a consistent basis?”
“What engagements is the Minister having with the Department of housing and State agencies in respect of ending the accommodation supports and ensuring that we do not end up with unforeseen or unplanned for impacts on a housing system that is already dysfunctional and under huge pressure?”
“I find some of those responses incredibly interesting. When Sinn Féin suggested that ending the temporary protection directive should include provision for a voluntary return scheme, members of the Government absolutely pilloried both my party and me personally for even suggesting that. It now appears that this is going to be part of the Minister's plan. Likewise, when it comes to the ARP and the various accommodation schemes, when Sinn Féin raised the impact that these were having on the private rental sector, for example, we were lambasted, not only by Government but also by other members of the Opposition. It is now virtually taken as read that the ARP in particular has had an impact on the rental accommodation sector.”
“Even at this point, there is no clarity about what will happen to Ukrainians in Ireland or what the impact on public policy here will be come the end of temporary protection. Whatever about the accommodation, which I will come to in a minute, can the Minister outline what the ending of the temporary protection directive is going to mean? People deserve to know.”
“I recall that the House was virtually unanimous in support of the emergency measures that were brought in at the outset of Russia's war against Ukraine. The temporary protection directive was an emergency measure, as the Minister quite rightly said. I do not think anybody envisaged that it would be in place for five years. As the Minister knows, I have been arguing very strongly that we need a roadmap, not only for policy areas and to be able to plan in an appropriate way in the interests of this State but also to provide certainty for beneficiaries of temporary protection. I have argued that the outline of such a roadmap should have been made clear long before now. The approach of the Government has been shambolic and chaotic.”
“The Government has been verging on the negligent in failing to plan in an orderly way for the winding down of the temporary protection directive. Since it announced that all measures relating to the directive will come to an end next year, there has been confusion heaped upon confusion. Will the Minister outline the preparations that have been made for the ending of the temporary protection directive?”
“Any reasonable person will look at what is being proposed here and will say that the Government is trying to get measures to expand the deployment of the Defence Forces through the Dáil, again without proper scrutiny, by putting them into a piece of criminal law and civil law, a miscellaneous Bill that already deals with a range of unrelated matters. What the Minister, Deputy McEntee, is trying to do is rushed, unfair, undemocratic and underhanded. Jim O'Callaghan made a mess. The Minister was dragged into the original mess. It seems she is going all in now. This is a product of Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael putting up in bright lights that they still have not listened. Sinn Féin will not be supporting this motion because the Government is treating this House with utter contempt.”
“When I was at the Galway protest, for example, with Mark Lohan and Mairéad Farrell, several people told me they were spurred to action because people who were protesting against the costs they were enduring and the pressures they were under were being threatened in that way. It now appears clear to me that, having learned nothing from the mess that the Minister, Deputy O'Callaghan, made of this situation, the Government is now changing the law to retrospectively make legal what he said during the protests. It is crazy stuff. Why bring this in now in this manner and in this type of legislation?”