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 7 of 30.
“If a buyer is found and a new enterprise is established, the Minister will be there to cut the ribbon and get all the glory. That is the benefit of being in government. However, the job of being in government is that one does not get to hide behind a State agency when we are trying to secure reinvestment in an area that has been deprived because of the closure of a substantive factory. People refer to the prima facie evidence, good will and the rest of it. Has the Minister’s Department established whether the owners of the Newbaze site, previously the Bose factory, availed of the immigrant investment scheme, for example? There are huge question marks over what exactly happened on the site. Given the level of investment we were told was being made in the building, with virtually no economic activity as a result, it does not make sense.”
“It seems as though everything is being left in the hands of the owners of this building, who have left it vacant for the past six years. My request is that the Minister take a hands-on approach to ensure we restore viable, high-end employment to this site.”
“The building has essentially lain idle for 11 years. I mentioned it was 2019 when we had the fanfare and the Minister’s party taking credit, make no mistake about it, for jobs brought by Fine Gael to Carrickmacross. The jobs never materialised. The question that needs to be answered is whether the Minister will take a hands-on approach. We met Enterprise Ireland. In fairness to the Minister of State, Deputy Smyth, she organised a briefing for local Oireachtas Members when the Minister, Deputy Burke, refused to answer my repeated requests for such a meeting. This is a crucially important venue. It is a huge site and was historically, economically very significant and important for the south Monaghan region, and it has lain idle.”
“The Bose factory was a landmark in the region of Carrickmacross for many years. In 2015, the factory closed and essentially has remained closed ever since because despite the huge fanfare from a Government colleague of the Minister’s, a then Minister, about 60 jobs coming, they never actually came. In recent months, we have been told that the factory is in fact up for sale. I seek an update on the Minister’s efforts to secure alternative employment for that site.”
“I have made this point on many occasions. Protocol 21 was attached to the Lisbon treaty and it was put in place recognising the concerns of the Irish people in respect of sovereignty and the wish of the Irish people that decisions relating to these matters should be made at a domestic national level where that is possible. However, we have seen a drift particularly with this Government and under this Minister where increasingly Protocol 21 regulations opt-ins are being brought before the Dáil with limited debate. I do not believe there is the consent or even the knowledge of the Irish people in respect of decisions that could have far-reaching consequences. In this case we are talking about something that I think will be broadly supported by everybody in this House but not all cases are as clear-cut as that.”
“Separately and outside of any EU framework, we have to acknowledge the policing challenges that arise in this country as a result of the fact that we are a partitioned nation and that part of our country operates outside of the EU. That affects the ability for the policing of communities and roads policing is one of the areas most affected. I represent a Border constituency. Time and again we have seen the Border used to evade prosecution for road traffic offences. Obviously, in the short term North-South co-operation is essential but the reality is that the solution to that particular issue is the simplest solution of all: it is to get rid of the Border on this island and to work towards the reunification of our country. I make a general point on the opt-ins that fall under the areas of freedom, security and justice.”
“I ask the justice Minister to assure the Oireachtas that robust protections will be in place to ensure that this data is not misused, retained longer than necessary or shared with third parties. Since Britain is now a third party under EU law, the standard of protection has to be equivalent to EU GDPR regulations. It is important that we remember the original purpose of the Prüm framework. It was designed for serious criminal offences and not just for routine enforcement. It is essential that this data is used strictly for the prevention and investigation of serious crimes. We cannot allow these types of data-sharing arrangements to drift by degrees into the type of surveillance I think many people would be rightfully fearful of.”
“Vehicle registration data includes personal information about drivers, owners and operators of vehicles as well as details of the vehicles themselves - for example, make, colour, model, licence plate and chassis numbers. Sinn Féin does not oppose this motion because it relates to the prevention and investigation of serious criminal offences and co-operation in this area to crack down on serious criminality that operates on an international or cross-border basis is clearly important. However, it is important that this House is clear about the safeguards that are required when transferring personal data to Britain which now operates outside of the EU and, therefore, is not subject to the same laws in terms of data.”
“We are discussing another Protocol 21 opt-in but this time it relates to the Council decision that would allow member states to resume the exchange of vehicle registration data with Britain for the prevention and investigation of criminal offences. It is important to note that the State already participates in automated searching and matching of vehicle registration data with EU member states under the Prüm decisions and, therefore, did so with Britain prior to Brexit. The Prüm decisions is a framework for EU countries to automatically exchange DNA, fingerprints and vehicle registration data and to co-operate in policing, counterterrorism and tackling cross-border crime.”
“I agree with a huge part, probably 90%, of this Bill. I believe that every sane adult in the country will support those measures. I refer to the mechanisms to ensure that children do not have access to nicotine products. The Minister of State has my full support on those. She should bank that and move forward in a united and cohesive way so that would be locked in. She should drop the mechanism that is clearly going to be divisive, that will lead to frustration and that will act to deter people from moving away from smoking or, in some cases, as a rationale to move back to smoking. It is time for Government to stop making a mess of things. It should not make a mess of legislation that should have the full support not only of this House but of every rational adult in the State.”
“I know a lot of people just do not like vaping and they are entitled to that view but, for many people, there has never been a more successful route away from smoking. The figures back that up. Between 2004 and 2019, the number of smokers in this State has reduced drastically. There are a number of different reasons for that but one has been the evolution of vaping products. Some people will say that vaping products are dangerous themselves but nobody will convince me that they are more dangerous than smoking. It is therefore the least worst option for many people. What the Government is now doing in suggesting a ban on all non-tobacco-flavoured vaping products could be one of the only measures that any government has brought forward that actually reverses the trend of reducing smoking rates that we have seen.”
“I sometimes wonder if this Government has the ability not to make a mess of everything. This Bill should be the most uncontroversial legislation to come before this House because there is political unanimity that children should not have access to vaping products, that there should be strong penalties for those who allow children access to such products, and that we should completely ban products that are clearly designed to appeal to children. That is the Bill that should have come before this House. Such robust provisions are required and there would have been political unanimity on them. Of course, as always, Government has made a mess of it by adding a provision that will only damage law-abiding adults, that is, the ban on the use of flavours in vapes. There is a point that needs to be recognised.”
“Sinn Féin has advocated for the reintroduction of energy credits but it is not good enough and it cannot be good enough for the Taoiseach to tell people to wait until next year's budget or to say what we are currently doing is enough. Families are under huge pressure and they need the Government's help.”
“Cuirim fáilte. I am really worried about the number of families I am meeting who are struggling with their energy bills. We know 315,000 households are currently in arrears but there are tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of others who are literally struggling just to pay their bills every month. The Taoiseach has to acknowledge that what his Government has done is not enough to help them. There is a growing divide between those who have the resources to be able to retrofit or put up solar panels and those who do not and who are meeting ever rising bills. It is especially in the context of the Minister, Deputy O'Brien, suggesting there could be increases in energy costs of 8% or more. Does the Taoiseach accept now that the Government has to do something to support ordinary families with the cost of electricity?”
“They are asking for what most of us take for granted, a place in the school that is appropriate to the needs of their children. I am asking the Government to support this motion but, more importantly, I am asking it to implement the provisions within it. We need to ensure that children get the education that they deserve and that they are entitled to.”
“Every September and October we are still chasing either to get the SNA support or to get a place in the class that is appropriate to the needs of the children. It just has to stop and cannot go on. We have heard enough of the rhetoric. I am sick of the press statements. I am absolutely sick to my hind teeth of the responses I get from the Department when I make representations on behalf of individual students, real children with real needs, and I get this bland response telling me about the extra SNA resources, the extra school places and whatever but no specific detail that the family needs. It has to change. There has to be a complete change of approach within the Department and within the NCSE. We need to realise we are talking about human beings here.”
“As an elected representative, I can think of nothing more frustrating than every single year dealing with parents and families desperately trying to get what most of us take for granted, an adequate school place for their children. Every single year Ministers come to his House to tell us they are making changes and it will be better next year, but every single year, if anything, the situation gets worse. Every spring we are dealing with questions coming from not only parents and families, but also schools in many instances to get a clear image in terms of how many children are going to be catered for in each school, in each class, in each special school the following September. Invariably after all the turmoil and all the interactions, every September some children will be left behind.”
“We have repeatedly tried to engage with him in the context of increasing increase transparency and accountability, ensuring community engagement and resolving some of the problems he created in the context of mistrust between the public and Government on this issue. We have also sought to ensure that we get value for money and, ultimately, have an international protection system that works for everyone, namely applicants, local communities and the taxpayer. The Minister has refused time and again to engage, and now we are trying to talk about a number of important amendments in a matter of minutes because, once again, the Government has guillotined the debate on the Bill. The Minister has done himself, his Department, this system and the legislation a disservice with the way he has approached matters from start to finish.”
“The average rate paid per bed rose by 68% from 2022 to 2024. This amendment would empower the Minister to take this by the reins, set a maximum daily rate and ensure it is adhered to. Cases have been throughout this debate and unfortunately the Minister has just refused to listen. It has been the narrative of the past couple of weeks. This Government refusing to listen. The protests in recent weeks were about its refusal to listen with regard to the cost of living and the soaring cost of fuel. When it comes to the international protection system, the Minister has been refusing to listen. He just put all his cards into the EU migration pact basket. He has refused to engage in any constructive way with the Opposition on this Bill.”
“82 states, "The Minister shall, by regulation, prescribe a maximum daily amount payable by the State for accommodation provided to applicants". Again, everything is being done to avoid any kind of transparency. On the notion of commercial sensitivity, as if there is anybody in the private sector going around with €1.3 billion to spend on accommodation. There is nobody in competition with you when it comes to this type of contract because nobody else would spend the amount of money the Department of justice is spending. Anybody else, even if it was devolved to local authorities, would get better value in the morning in terms of the money being spent. There has been a lot of talk about price gouging in recent weeks. There has been serious price gouging going on over the past number of years.”
“Any information on scandals - and there have been plenty - has never come from the Department; it has always come from journalists or independent voices, and sometimes from residents who have raised serious questions. The pre-legislative scrutiny report we talked about earlier warned that due diligence processes for international protection accommodation were completely inadequate. It highlighted the incomplete checks in respect of planning permission, ownership, safety compliance and provider suitably. It concluded that weak oversight and inconsistent verification created financial, legal and operational risks within the accommodation system. If there is nothing to hide, there would be no reason to oppose this amendment. I have to make that point strongly. Amendment No. 3 to Seanad amendments No.”
“The Government cannot proceed in the way it has up to now, namely where communities are disregarded and the only criterion to determine where an IPAS centre is located is that an operator has a building and is willing to use it for that purpose. Simon has an opportunity tonight to direct his party's Deputies to vote in favour of this amendment in order to make it clear that IPAS centres should only be placed in areas where the resources are in place to accommodate them and that communities have a real say in what happens to them. That would be better for everybody. It would be better for residents of IPAS centres and local communities. Amendment No. 2 to Seanad amendment No. 82 deals with the absolute lack of due diligence and information regarding beneficial owners of those companies that have received IPAS contracts.”
“We do not have to ask politicians or journalists. The Comptroller and Auditor General, the Government's own watchdog, has found major weaknesses in IPAS contracting. The Minister tells us that this cannot happen again or will not happen again but there is nothing in policy form to provide a bit of transparency on that. This is an amendment that the Minister could accept that would send out the message that the Government is learning the lesson when it comes to the lack of transparency within the IPAS system. In the context of my amendments to Seanad amendment No. 82, I am surprised because I clearly heard Simon Harris, the Tánaiste and the leader of a main party in government, say that communities have to be engaged.”
“There is continuing and ongoing failure not only to address the profiteering within the IPAS system but, on the Minister's part, to even acknowledge that it is happening. We know that a small number of private operators have made millions of euro from the Government's dysfunctional approach. What is worse is that there is no transparency, including around what actually qualifies some of these providers to provide these services. The amendment to Seanad amendment No. 66 is simply about ensuring there is some transparency. We have called for a full review of every IPAS contract. The reason for this is that everybody who has looked at these issues objectively and every journalist who has carried out an examination of any IPAS contract has found blatant wastage of public money and a number of scandals have emerged.”
“They are not compliant with national standards, they are not inspected by HIQA and they are typically in rented buildings. We know from recent reports that up to a quarter of staff working in special emergency arrangements last year did not have the documentation required to work with vulnerable children There is clearly a problem with those providers and whether the amendment is accepted or not, I hope it is something the Government will work on. How is it that every time there are vulnerable people who need accommodation involved, the Government figures out a way whereby a few lads will make a lot of money on it? It is just unbelievable. That could be Tusla and the provision of care for children but where it is absolutely most blatant is in the IPAS system.”
“You wait for a long time for a bus and then a number of them come at once. A number of my amendments are in this grouping and I will restrict myself to them, considering the timeline. I know amendment No. 1 to Seanad amendment No. 65 has been disallowed but I want to make the case very strongly that we need to end the use of for-profit providers of accommodation for those in Tusla care. That is what this amendment sought to do. A judge in Dublin District Court recently hit out at what he quite rightly described as the profiteering by private operators providing unregulated placements for the most vulnerable children. He described it as wrong and shameful, and he was right. Special emergency arrangements are unregulated placements provided by private operators.”
“I asked the Minister of State, Deputy Colm Brophy, a number of times on Committee Stage what additional resources and measures would be put in place to assure that Tusla had the capacity to deal with the additional obligations it would have. The Minister of State simply answered repeatedly that he was satisfied that it would. That is not good enough and that is not an assurance to this House. I hope the Minister can give us a more substantive reassurance.”
“The point I am making is that there needs to be a secondary tier, as it were, for disputed minors because we do not want to have a situation where somebody whose age is disputed ends up in adult accommodation only for it to transpire that they were, in fact, children. It is not that we do not accept or appreciate the challenge. It is just that we do not have confidence in this Government to actually meet that challenge and deal with it. The evidence suggests that Tusla is not meeting its obligations, not only in respect of international protection, but in terms of vulnerable children generally. That creates the issue that needs to be addressed. Therein lies the problem. Tusla will have specific legal obligations as a result of this legislation.”
“I will just make a couple of comments on that. The Minister's rationale for refusing to accept the amendment is, I believe, that there is no need for it. I would contest that. On the Minister's latter point, I do not think there is any suggestion that people do not appreciate the challenges that are involved. We have had quite an amount of discussion on this at the Oireachtas justice committee. For sure, the committee members fully appreciate that this is a very difficult situation to manage. In the first instance, we need to ensure that verified minors are not housed with adults.”
“Tusla is an organisation that is stretched and there has been no clarification from the Minister’s Department or its sister Department that has oversight of Tusla that additional resources, capacity and supports are going to be provided to help it carry out what could become a very difficult task, particularly given that Tusla is currently engaged in quite a number of for-profit contracts for the provision of accommodation for children. That is completely unacceptable.”
“There are huge question marks over its ability to undertake the responsibilities it currently has. If we are in a situation where we need a three-tiered system, and two-tiered regarding unaccompanied minors where we have verified children and people for whom there is a dispute over their age - clearly with this latter category, we do not want them in adult-only accommodation either - this creates a big challenge.”
“Particularly with younger children, there is clearly often a hidden hand in terms of exploitation of the children entering the system, and we need to be very robust in dealing with that hidden hand and the individuals involved in trafficking minors. For the minors themselves, it is crucial that we have a child-centred approach. That approach must ensure that, in Tusla accommodation in particular, we do not have people claiming to be minors where that is disputed in the same facilities as actual, verified minors. This is where there is a huge question mark around the capacity of Tusla to manage the additional responsibilities this legislation will put on them. I raised this matter with the Minister of State, who said that Tusla would be fine even though Tusla very much is not fine at the moment.”
“The amendment seeks to strengthen protections for unaccompanied minors by requiring that all provisional and full representatives meet clear, child-specific safeguarding standards. This ensures that every action taken in respect of children is grounded in child protection principles attentive to age, culture, trauma and vulnerability. It obliges representatives to actively protect minors from harm or exploitation and guarantees that all procedures, interviews and assessments are carried out in a child-appropriate, trauma-informed way, reinforcing the best interests principle through the process. It is an important provision that strengthens the legislation and ensures there is no doubt but that there is a child-centred approach when we are dealing with children. There is a broader piece of work around unaccompanied minors.”
“I move amendment No. 1 to Seanad amendment No. 44: After subsection (3), to insert the following: “(4) A provisional representative person or a representative person appointed in relation to an unaccompanied minor shall, in the performance of his or her functions, comply with child specific safeguarding standards, and in particular shall— (a) ensure that all actions taken in respect of the unaccompanied minor are guided by the principles of child protection, child welfare and the best interests of the child, (b) have due regard to the minor’s age, maturity, gender, cultural background, developmental needs and any indicators of trauma or vulnerability, (c) take all reasonable steps to ensure that the unaccompanied minor is protected from harm, exploitation, re-trafficking, secondary victimisation or any treatment that may adversely affect the minor’s physical, psychological or emotional well-being, and (d) ensure that any interviews, assessments, procedures or engagements involving the unaccompanied minor are conducted in a child appropriate, trauma informed and culturally sensitive manner.”.”
“We hear members of the Minister's party and of Fine Gael talking all the time about wanting to have transparency, accountability and a clear process that works and how setting out the EU migration asylum pact allows everybody to understand how the system works. Yet, every single time the Minister is asked to be open with the public, he refuses. Therefore, if I get an opportunity, I will be moving this amendment.”
“I have asked the Minister on a number of occasions. If I was a Minister and I was told there was information available in the Department that does not and could not prejudice, I would be saying to the Department that we needed to wise up here, get this information, pull it together and publish it. It is certainly nothing to do with personal data, and nobody is seeking that, but I am referring to general aggregated data. I know the Government loves commercial sensitivity as a reason not to provide any information in respect of IPAS but it cannot cite international sensitivity here. If, on the off chance, we get to amendment No. 1 to amendment No. 91, I will be pressing it because it is really important.”
“There is a flippancy in terms of any discussion of any proposals coming from the Opposition. It is crucially important the public knows how international protection applicants enter the State. It is also crucial, just to repeat the point, what permissions were granted prior to that. It is imperative that we have reliable information on entry routes in order to plan effectively and maintain the public confidence that we have spoken about. We also need to have better information in terms of data with regard to Britain and that is why I repeat that we need to have bilateral arrangements in terms of information sharing, returns and a very clear position on how we deal with our nearest neighbour and the source, as has been acknowledged here, of likely the largest number of international protection applicants.”
“I wish to speak to amendment No. 1 to Seanad amendment No. 91 in my name. It is important to state very clearly what the Minister is opposing here. This amendment calls on the Minister "to record, and publish in anonymised and aggregate form, annual statistical information on the routes of entry of applicants to whom this section applies, including - (a) the number of applicants presenting at a port or airport, (b) the number presenting inland, (c) the number reporting entry via the Common Travel Area, and (d) the number whose route of entry could not be established, and such information shall be published not later than 31 March each year.”. I still do not think the Government has come to realise just how deep the public's mistrust is in its ability to develop an international protection system that works.”
“It points to a haphazard approach that has been the hallmark of how this system has been managed and has led to all the public distrust in the system. What I am trying to do is encourage the Minister to change the approach. Get away from the secrecy. Get away from building walls between information and the public and start building trust again in this area.”
“I accept it is probably a majority and potentially a substantial majority. I accept all of those things. However, the truth of the matter is I cannot say that for sure because the Minister will not give me the evidence that would allow someone to say that for sure. I am not the person who points and says figures like 90%, 85% or 80%. It is the Minister for justice and different Government Ministers who repeatedly cite different figures, which is a bit bizarre in itself. The Minister keeps repeating that but will not provide the public with the data. He says, "Oh well, we can deduct that, take A from B and end up with C", which allows us to think this is probably the situation. It just points to the dysfunction.”
“This is the problem. With no disrespect to anyone in the Minister's Department, the Irish public does not trust the Department to manage migration. They certainly do not trust it to manage international protection and the more areas the Minister hides from accountability and transparency and the divulging of information, the more it is so. No one wants information about individuals or families; of course not. That is not what we are talking about. We are talking about general information to inform public policy. I have said it again. The Minister clearly does not listen to me because I have said about six times during the course of all these debates that I accept it is very likely that a significant proportion of international applicants come through the common travel area.”
“-----I would love for him to listen to himself sometimes, because he has just set out a paradox in terms of his position. He said his Department publishes the nationalities of people seeking international protection on a weekly basis and, on the other hand, he said it would be too burdensome for his Department to collate and publish their origin in terms of visa route. The information would be in exactly the same place. It would be in the application that was made. When people make an application, they state whether they have been in the State on another visa or come through a third country and what the country of origin was. It is just a matter of changing the software so the information is collated. If there is a logical reason - other than it being too much hassle - not to publish this information, the Minister should just say so.”
“It is one of the very many areas in which the lack of information and due diligence on the part of the Minister's Department means that public discourse takes place in a vacuum. People can go on Facebook and say that 80% of people who come as tourists from a particular state subsequently seek international protection and no Member of this House can say with certainty that it is downright false because we do not have the information because the Minister's Department will not publish it. I ask again. Will the Minister ensure his Department collates that type of information and publishes it to Members of this House so we can be better guided in public policy discourse?”
“Likewise - and I hope I am not too far out because I am trying to think from memory - my understanding is that in one year in Britain, for example, it transpired after analysis that 3% of international protection applicants had previously entered the British state with an education visa. That allowed its Parliament to examine the education visa system to ensure it was robust and could not be used as a back door to bypass employment visa regulations or the international protection system. The Minister says we know whether people originally came on an education, employment or tourism visa, but the fact he will not collate that makes it more difficult for the Houses of the Oireachtas to analyse whether there are areas in public policy that need to be addressed to ensure we have a migration system that is fit for purpose.”
“On that point, the Minister said we know it is 90%. We do not know that. I accept that it is probably the case that a large proportion, if not a majority and perhaps even a substantial majority, of people who claim international protection come via the common travel area. It is one of the reasons we tabled amendments in respect of the common travel area, which the Minister rejected. I have been rightly critical - and will be vindicated as such - of the fact that the Minister is prioritising this legislation rather than pursuing a bilateral agreement with Britain. However, we need to know exactly, percentage-wise, year-on-year, because that is how public policy is decided and developed.”
“-----we are not going to get to all the amendments because the Minister has guillotined this Stage, as he has all other Stages. I am asking this at this point. I would like clarification. Does the Minister agree that information would be helpful for guiding public policy and, if so, will he ensure it is collated and published?”
“I also made a freedom of information, FOI, application after I asked those 15 or 20 different parliamentary questions. I got a response yesterday to my request for the number of IP applicants who had transited through another mechanism. The reply to the freedom of information request stated the Department does not have that information and that it would be too burdensome to collate it. Is that the truth? Does the Minister have the information on the number of IP applicants who previously came on other types of visas?”
“Therefore, it is, insofar as it is possible, important to know what states people have come from and what states they have transited through, and then the issues in respect of returns regulations and safe third countries can apply. It is equally important that we would have the information in respect of other mechanisms by which people apply for international protection. As I say, I have submitted quite a number of parliamentary questions. I have, as one must when one is dealing with the Minister's Department, tried rewording things in 15 different ways before the Department answers the question that it knew was being asked in the first place.”
“The Minister is missing the point I was making about the collation of data. On one hand, he is saying that when applicants make an application and give their background and history, we take them at face value. The initial assumption is that they are telling the truth. On the other hand, he is saying that we cannot know unless there is control on the Border. The point I am making is that if we are to have a properly managed migration system, which I think everyone agrees we need even if they disagree about what it might look like, it means that in respect of international protection, it is important that to the best of the State's ability we get the personal information that is required to process the applications and the general information and statistical data to inform public policy.”
“I am. This is in respect of data. There are a number of amendments there. If the Ceann Comhairle wants to go through them all, she can figure it out while I ramble on. I was coming to an end anyway. Of course, none of us, nor the public, need to know personal information, but the Department needs to have it comprehensively. In terms of general information and data, the Government needs to be much better at sharing it with the public. The Minister made a statement. He or his predecessor said that 90% of applicants were coming through the common travel area. Will he acknowledge that there is no way he can say that unless he has the information that I sought and that his Department told me does not exist. Is the Minister going to ensure that information is going to be collated and published, and, if so, when?”