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 8 of 30.
“If we are talking about having a managed migration system, we need to understand all of that. The Minister seems to be indicating he has that information but he will not share it with me. I have asked him plenty of times by way of parliamentary questions. His Department tells me that the information is not available and, while it is compiled on individual applications, it is not collated.”
“As I say, the Minister's analysis assumes that everybody who does not claim international protection at one of our ports or airports must have come through the common travel area. There is a fundamental flaw with that. International evidence suggests that a portion - which varies, and sometimes the variations can be quite big - of international protection applicants who arrive to the State with a valid visa but for another reason, in the first instance, subsequently claim international protection, as is their right under international law. It is nonsensical and hard to believe that the Minister's Department does not compile information on the numbers of people who enter the State visa-free or with short-term travel visas, student permits or employment permits. We need that information.”
“In respect of the amendments regarding the Data Protection Act, of course, it is imperative that the full information in terms of decision-making in respect of individuals applying for international protection is known to the Department and that there is the ability to fully appraise the history insofar as it matters for an application of the applicant. As the Minister knows, that is why I have supported signing up to the Eurodac regulation. In that sense and in that instance, it makes sense that we would have the ability to share information with other EU states. The Minister has highlighted a glaring deficiency, in that, as Deputy Gannon has said, it is broadly accepted that the majority of IPAS applicants at this stage probably come through the common travel area. However, we cannot say with any certainty in what proportion.”
“The difficulty is that after today, whatever changes are going to be made will not by made by representatives acting on behalf of the Irish people but by officials within the European Commission or by a High Court judge. I wanted to put those things on record because it is crucially important and the public deserves to know the Government is adopting the exact same shambolic approach to the international protection legislation as it has to the international protection system. That system has led to serious disquiet and division within communities and enriched a very small number of people at the expense of those who are seeking international protection and the communities affected by decisions made by this Government.”
“This is verging on a charade. There has been no democratic scrutiny of this Bill. It is the Minister’s Bill and his alone. He has been locked into a position by the previous Government to sign us up to a pact with no consideration whatsoever for its implications. Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael signed us up to the EU migration and asylum pact not because they thought it would lead to a more efficient system or resolve the dysfunction in the system but simply so they could say in advance of a general election they were doing something about migration when they are doing absolutely nothing. The Minister has concentrated his entire Department’s resources on a single Bill. He is forcing staff and officials to rush from one Stage to another. On every Stage, the legislation has required substantive change.”
“He voted against amendments to that effect in this House just a number of weeks ago, but the good news is that, if we get to it, there is an amendment today that will allow that very provision. What he says is his affair, but it might be just another case of Simon says one thing and Simon does the exact opposite.”
“As for any prospect that the matter of the obscene sums of money that have been spent and, I would argue, wasted as a result of the Government's mismanagement will be addressed, nobody can have confidence that this will happen because it has refused, time and again, to put in place mechanisms that will allow transparency in the form of the publication of IPAS contracts and to allow communities to have a real say in what happens. Something incredibly interesting from the past couple of weeks was seeing Simon Harris - he was actually having a go at the Minister - saying communities should have a say in what happens in their areas in the context of IPAS centres.”
“I have predicted on every Stage that this legislation and the Minister’s approach to it are going to result in High Court cases. I believe some of them will be successful. There is no way anybody can say that there has been proper democratic scrutiny of this legislation because the Government has prevented it. Ultimately, this will result in infringement proceedings at European Commission level because the Minister has included provisions in this legislation that he has no ability to deliver. There is no confidence regarding the time it takes to process applications and to do so fairly. All the evidence in this regard points to a dysfunction that is embedded in the IPAS system. There is not a chance that anybody can have confidence in decisions being enforced.”
“It is now back here for a debate that will last just three hours. What has the Minister brought forward? There are 90 pages of amendments. Who are they from? Some 267 of them have been tabled by the Minister. This is the final part of the debate on the Bill. Once again, rather than detailed scrutiny, that debate is to be limited to three hours. That is absolutely disgraceful. The Minister has brought forward technical amendments, but there is no way the public can be confident that there are not other gaps in the legislation. The difficulty is that after today, the next gap or gaps - and they will probably be glaring gaps - will be identified not by an elected representative of the people but by a judge in the High Court.”
“Those amendments, if I may remind the Minister, related to community engagement, community impact assessment and to the gross profiteering taking place within the international protection and accommodation system and the obscene amount of being spent on that accommodation. Last year alone, €1.3 billion, for which there is no transparency or accountability, was spent on IPAS accommodation. There were amendments to address the failings of the legislation and the EU pact and to address the glaring black hole that is the common travel area and its implications for the Bill. The Minister criticised Members for spending time discussing those amendments when it was he who refused to allow them be debated in committee, and he then imposed a guillotine. The Bill then went to the Seanad.”
“The list of proposed Committee Stage amendments was as comprehensive as you will see, but the Government guillotined the debate and refused to allow the amendments to be discussed and analysed in the place where they should have been, which is the committee rooms of these Houses. The Government guillotined and curtailed the debate on the legislation. This was despite the fact most of the amendments to the Bill, which had just gone through Second Stage, were put forward by the Minister. Despite there being numerous important amendments that this House should have had the opportunity to discuss, the Minister refused to allow that to happen and, indeed, criticised Members of this House for spending too long, as he saw it, discussing some amendments.”
“The pre-legislative scrutiny report agreed across party lines set out very clearly that the decision of the Government to tie us in, lock, stock and barrel, to the EU migration and asylum pact was completely wrong, called on the Government parties to try to reconsider and set out very clearly that the gaps in the heads of the Bill meant it was not possible to carry out pre-legislative scrutiny. The Government ignored all of that and brought forward a comprehensive 200-page Bill. Before the Dáil had even finished the Second Stage debate, the deadline for amendments had already passed. As a result, Second Stage counted for nothing. It did not matter what any Member of this House contributed to that debate, including, perhaps, inspiring amendments from either the Government or the Opposition. It was all just a box-ticking exercise.”
“The first stage was the heads of the Bill being brought before the Joint Committee on Justice, Home Affairs and Migration. In an effort to try to facilitate the Department with what is comprehensive legislation, the committee tried to deal with it as quickly as possible. The testimony and written submissions of all the witnesses may have come from different perspectives, but they all agreed that the Government’s approach was shambolic, that the heads of the Bill were incomplete and that this would not allow proper scrutiny to take place.”
“This is a pact which Sinn Féin told the Government there was no need to sign up to and which undermines Irish sovereignty and our ability to manage our migration system. It is a pact that takes no account of the unique circumstances of this nation, which is a nation divided, with one part within the European Union's structures and the other part operating outside them. It is a pact that takes no account of the fact that we operate within a common travel area with a state that is not part of the EU framework or part of the pact. In its efforts to through bull a Bill with the sole intention of adhering to the terms of the EU pact, the Government has been absolutely haphazard in its approach. It has undermined the role of Oireachtas at every turn. I will remind the House of that approach.”
“I will make a couple of broad remarks that I think have been emphasised by the fact that at this Stage, the last Stage in the Oireachtas, the Minister has to bring forward further, albeit technical, changes to this legislation. The Minister's entire approach to this legislation has verged on the reckless. It is absolutely reckless in terms of his refusal to allow proper scrutiny of a piece of legislation that he has described as the most comprehensive legislation dealing with migration in decades. The approach has been guided not by what is in the best interests of the Irish people or delivering an international protection system that works and resolves the dysfunction that the parties of Government have created, but has been directed solely and entirely by the need to live up to the provisions of the EU migration and asylum pact.”
“Will Fianna Fáil TDs bring the message they have been receiving from their constituents? Will Fine Gael TDs do so? What about the Independents, those who pretend to be champions of the people? Will they act in the interests of those who elected them or will they act in their own self-interest? The truth is that if TDs are to live up to the promise of those who established an chéad Dáil, and if they are to fulfil the pledge to be messengers of the people, then this Government will be gone tonight. It is time to pick a side. They are either on the side of those whom they pledged to represent or they are on the side of this debacle of a Government. I will be bringing the message of my constituents to the Dáil this evening. I will be voting no confidence in this shambolic Government.”
“They are the people who went without meals in order to save their farms and their homes because the Government bailed out the banks instead. They are the backbone of the domestic economy, the lifeline of every town, village and rural community in the State, and their voices have been heard loud and clear. The question today is whether the Government has listened. Is Teachtaí Dala muid. When the revolutionary generation established the first Dáil it made a significant decision. Elected representatives would not simply be titled "Members of Parliament". Instead, those returned by voters would be given not so much a title but an obligation as Teachtaí Dala, messengers of the people. Today is the day for every Member of the House to bring the message of the people to this Government.”
“It refused to listen or to acknowledge the financial pressures faced by workers, carers, people with disabilities and families. It ignored small businesses, farmers, contractors, bus drivers, hauliers and virtually everyone else. It introduced a budget that made people worse off and then it had to be dragged kicking and screaming to act, and when it did it introduced half measures. Those who have been making their voices heard are the salt of the earth. I have spoken to them. They are hard-working people, most of whom had never protested before in their lives. They were the same people we turned to when the parties in government crashed the economy. They were the people who lost businesses and then rebuilt them.”
“For all the Government's arrogance and backslapping, the truth that Ministers have not divulged is that their TDs are under more pressure today than they have been in a political lifetime. This pressure is not coming from Sinn Féin or any other party but it is coming from their constituents. Yes, Sinn Féin tabled the no confidence motion but we are just the messengers.”
“All the while, the numbers of properties in the ARP scheme continued to grow, with an increase of 5,000 properties last year alone. Now we have confirmation of what we have been saying all along by way of an explicit confirmation in a Government report. It states categorically that the ARP scheme is having a negative impact on the private rental sector, yet the Government's answer is to extend it for another year. It is absolutely crazy stuff. Once again, Sinn Féin is moving an amendment that would resolve the deficiencies in this scheme. There is an opportunity this evening for every Member of this House to let the public know whether lessons have actually been learned.”
“There are precisely zero other housing supports from which families can benefit regardless of their income or wealth. The fact the payment is available to Ukrainians and nobody else means it is exactly the type of policy that leads to resentment and division. Again, it is hard to understand how it has had such support among members of parties on both sides of this Chamber. The ARP distorts the rental sector. Sinn Féin has stated this time and again and the Government has dismissed us time and again. Indeed, Opposition party Members have stood in this Chamber and accused Sinn Féin of all sorts simply for stating what is now an absolute fact. The amendments we put forward that would have addressed that problem have been rejected time and again.”
“This scheme should not be extended without the significant amendments Sinn Féin has proposed. To recap, the accommodation recognition payment was introduced as a payment for people who housed Ukrainians in their own homes after the Russian invasion. However, it has morphed into something very different. It is uniquely a tax-free payment to landlords who can then get top-up payments that are completely unregulated. Uniquely, the landlord is completely exempt from all the rules that would apply for any other tenant. It is a landlord's charter. It is not surprising that Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael came up with it but it is surprising that other Opposition parties have backed them all the way. Uniquely as well, those who are accommodated under this scheme are not means-tested.”
“We know that because a report published by the Department of housing tells us so. The report states that the payment "still represents a substantial incentive to divert properties from the private rental sector to the ARP scheme". The report points out that the tax-free nature of the ARP means it is more attractive than rental returns in some parts of the country, including the maximum levels of the housing assistance payment available to some households nationally. I could have written the report myself because it says exactly what Sinn Féin has been saying. Ministers have serious questions to answer about their failure to be honest with the Dáil about the impact of the ARP. Opposition parties that have taken the Government at its word should also reflect on their position.”
“The rate, which had been increased to €800 in September 2022, was reduced to €600 in the middle of last year. Now the Government is talking about changing it again. The ARP provides a non-means-tested housing support to Ukrainians that is not available to anyone else in need of housing. That is unfair because those who receive this support could be in well-paid employment and may be working alongside others who receive no housing supports but might need them. Repeated warnings about the impact and unfairness of the ARP were ignored, and that is a real problem. The Government failed to listen and to act. The Minister of State is being entirely disingenuous in citing a survey he knows no landlord would complete. Any measures the Government has taken to address potential impacts have been too little and too late.”
“The accommodation recognition payment was originally introduced in July 2022 at a rate of €400 per month, tax free, in the months following Russia's invasion of Ukraine. It was designed as an emergency measure to support those who opened their homes to provide accommodation to beneficiaries of temporary protection arriving in Ireland. Sinn Féin has commended, and I commend again, all those who opened rooms in their houses to accommodate people fleeing war. Since then, however, the scheme has morphed into something entirely different. It has impacted on rents in the private rental sector and has enabled landlords to evade their usual tenancy obligations while getting a tax-free payment of, at some points, up to €800 per month, plus top-ups.”
“I move amendment No. 1: To insert the following after "23rd February, 2026": ", provided that this Order shall take effect only after the Civil Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2022 has been amended to provide for the Accommodation Recognition Payment (ARP) scheme termination date to be extended, only for the following: — existing recipients, with respect to the beneficiaries of temporary protection currently benefitting from the scheme, where those beneficiaries of temporary protection have satisfied a means test, similar to those applicable for other housing assistance payments; — new applications, who propose to host a beneficiary of temporary protection in their property, which is also their own primary residence, and who have not availed of the Rent-a-Room Relief scheme in the previous 24 months, ensuring that the ARP does not further distort the rental sector; and — recipients who are not in receipt of any additional or 'top-up' payments from a beneficiary of temporary protection.".”
“Sinn Féin forced the Government to introduce the bits it introduced this week but alongside workers, families, businesses, carers and farmers, we are going keep pushing for fairness. We are going to force the Minister to deliver the type of support the families we represent desperately need.”
“For these people, what the Government has announced is not relief; it is downright insulting. It is the same for farmers who are already under huge pressure facing soaring costs for green diesel and fertiliser. The Government's response does not even come close to recognising the scale of the challenge they face. What is most telling in all of this is that even as the limited measures are being introduced, we have Ministers already talking about how they are going to take them away and when. That tells us everything we need to know. The Government is out of touch with the real pressures people face every day. That has long been evident but I want to make it absolutely clear that the battle is not over.”
“Let us call out what happened this week. Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael TDs voted against Sinn Féin proposals that would have substantially cut the cost of petrol, diesel and home heating oil. Instead they brought in measures that fall far short. Now we are arriving with a 2 cent cut in the NORA levy and the Government expects applause. That is not leadership. It is actually damage control. It is far too little far too late. The reality is simple though. In a few weeks, today's tiny reduction is going to be wiped out by another carbon tax increase. It is classic Simon Harris - give with one hand today and take back with the other tomorrow - but people see through it, especially in rural communities, people in communities who have no choice but to use their cars and families who are depending on home heating oil just to keep their home warm.”
“We need to listen to people like Margaret Loftus, a former garda herself, and address how gardaí are handling or sometimes mishandling internal complaints and allegations of criminality and how members who challenge wrongdoing within the organisation are treated. We have seen in the Garda, as elsewhere, that protecting whistleblowers is not always considered a priority. We want to ensure gardaí are held to the highest standards and that internal Garda investigations are fair and transparent. We want to have a police service that has the confidence of our communities. I commend and thank the gardaí in my constituency on their ongoing work under very difficult circumstances because the truth of the matter is that, just as in every other constituency, there are not enough of them.”
“When we have quite a number of them taking place, I have a genuine fear, which has not been addressed, that we will see under-policing in many of our communities. We need more gardaí but we also need those gardaí to be trained and held to the highest professional standards. We need to look at how we train, educate and pay gardaí if we want to ensure we have the best police service possible. We need to ensure gardaí have access to education and training on an ongoing basis, given the complexities of new laws and technology they are expected to deal with. The public has to have confidence in the governance and management of An Garda Síochána and that requires fully addressing the number of gardaí who are working on domestic, sexual and gender-based violence as well as ensuring the organisation responds to such cases properly.”
“We are all aware of the lack of Garda visibility in many of our communities and on our streets. Those of us who are at the coalface of communities are very much aware of the lack of community gardaí to build relationships with young people and deal with diversion from crime. We are very well aware of the fact we do not have enough roads policing gardaí to ensure safety on our roads. We are all very well aware of the over-dependence on overtime to carry out routine police work. I have spoken to the Minister on a number of occasions about how we are coming into a period in the second half of this year when, in my view, the Garda will be overstretched with big events such as those following from the EU Presidency and so on. In the past, gardaí have been pulled from communities into Dublin city centre for those large-scale events.”
“Last autumn, I produced a series of proposals from Sinn Féin that included things like increasing the Garda training allowance to the equivalent of the minimum wage, increasing the maximum capacity per intake at the Garda training college, introducing a return-to-policing grant to incentivise those who have left the force to rejoin, removing points on the Garda pay scale so that gardaí can progress faster on it, introducing an annual long-service payment and increasing the mandatory retirement age to 65. Each and every one of those proposals could have made an impact but none has been taken on board. This is important because the issue of Garda numbers is not an abstract debate. All of us are aware of situations of unmanned Garda stations or stations that are open for minimal hours.”
“The truth is that no new or innovative measures have been taken since the Minister took office that would increase the number of trainees or encourage existing members to remain. We have had nothing in terms of the Garda allowance or pay progression. Nothing has been done, for example, to encourage those gardaí who have left the force to rejoin. In fact, many of those who have sought to rejoin have found it incredibly difficult to do so.”
“I commend the Labour Party on bringing forward this motion and Deputy Kelly on his persistent work in this area. It has been more than a year since the Minister took office so this motion is a timely opportunity to assess the progress that has actually been made on Garda numbers in the time since. Last year, as the Minister alluded to, there were two high-profile and much-lauded Garda recruitment campaigns. There were 11,000 applications to join the force. That is a very positive story. However, looking at the output, 619 gardaí were actually attested last year. That raises serious questions around the ability to meet the targets of 5,000 new gardaí over the term of the Government or the fact that interest in joining the Garda is not translating into increased numbers.”
“Those of us who engage with families across the board, and from different perspectives, are never but overawed and inspired by the way and manner in which they ensure the memory of their loved ones is protected and held in esteem. Their ability to secure truth and justice never wavers. Finally, the principle we should agree on is that all those who have been bereaved as a result of conflict on this island, from whatever perspective, whether their family members were killed by British state agents, republicans, loyalists or loyalists in collusion with the British state, regardless, they all have the same right to truth and justice. We should make that a principle we all agree to and that we agree this House will do whatever is necessary to create the mechanism for which that will happen.”
“I will say it again: we have all been rightly critical of the approach of British governments relating to issues regarding the legacy but our own record and the record of this State also needs to be addressed. I will say again in my closing remarks that we have to and should co-operate with legacy investigations in other states, particularly where there is pertinent information within State bodies here, as with the Omagh bombing. We also need to ensure we can say, hand on heart, that the outstanding cases in this State are fully investigated. I commend the victims and survivors of the Omagh bombing on the dignified manner in which they have campaigned for truth and justice.”
“We also have cases with clear investigative failures that have been raised several times in this House, including the case of Fr. Niall Molloy, the case of Terence Wheelock and the case of Shane O'Farrell. All those cases continue to cast a dark shadow over the criminal justice system in this State. The reason I raise all those cases is that we have to mean what we say when we say victims of historical injustices have a right to answers, truth and justice. That is why I believe there is a very strong case for the establishment of a historical inquiries unit in this State, along the lines of what has been proposed by the Irish Council for Civil Liberties and the Committee on the Administration of Justice.”
“I have mentioned the issue and legacy of the Garda Heavy Gang, which has never been addressed and for which there has been no accountability for the number of miscarriages of justice that group was involved in, yet nobody has been held to account. It was incredible for the Minister to state there has been no accountability in terms of the facts we know. Agents of this State framed people for crimes they did not commit, including by coercive confessions, with one case resulting in the death of a person who was framed for a crime they did not commit. Nothing or very little has been done for cases related to the legacy of the conflict where there is evidence of collusion, such as the cases of Eddie Fullerton, the Dublin Airport bombing, the Dublin and Monaghan bombings, the case of John Francis Green and the case of Martin Doherty.”
“Before I conclude, I wish to make a couple of observations on the need for this State to deal properly with historical investigations, including but not solely narrowed to, the cases related to the legacy of the conflict and collusion I raised with the Minister last week. To be honest, I found his response quite dismissive. If we are serious - and I think we have every right to - about challenging the British Government on its failure to provide truth and justice or to provide an avenue for legacy issues to be addressed, then we also have to look at the record in this State. In addition to State cases related to collusion and the legacy of the conflict that has been mentioned, there are far too many unresolved cases of historic investigative failures.”
“There has never been a sustained diplomatic or legal pressure applied to force disclosure from the British Government in cases like that, and that has to change. It is absolutely right that the Irish Government co-operates in respect of inquiries, such as the Omagh Bombing Inquiry. That is unanimously agreed across this House. We should also have the right to state that we expect the same level of co-operation from the British Government, which has not been the case up to this point. The British Government must release all information relating to not only that attack but to all others that were perpetrated by the so-called Glenanne gang, and in all instances where British state actors or agents colluded in attacks and murders on this island, be it in the North or South.”
“Prior to this legislation being brought forward, the Irish Government reached a memorandum of understanding with that inquiry, which included commitments on disclosures to the Omagh Bombing Inquiry. The reason I am raising other cases is that the priority now should be to get similar commitments on disclosure regarding events in this State from the British Government. We need to ensure all families and victims have recourse to truth and justice. We have seen several reports being published and limited investigations have been carried out but, again, this State has never delivered a full public inquiry with statutory requirements to compel all relevant evidence relating to Dublin and Monaghan, particularly in respect of material held by British authorities.”
“The First Minister, Michelle O'Neill, rightly described the British Government's behaviour in that case as disgraceful and accused it of showing deep disrespect to the Brown family and the fine, clear High Court and Court of Appeal rulings. We are also reminded of how little co-operation this State has got from the British Government on incidents of collusion in this State. I am minded, as we approach the 52nd anniversary of the Dublin and Monaghan bombings, of the continued lack of co-operation from the British Government in handing over papers and files relating to the atrocities, despite the repeated demands from this House. Again, this is completely unacceptable.”
“I appeal to the Minister to ensure that meeting takes place before we get to Committee Stage because we want to make sure that the legislation is fit for purpose and, just as importantly, that the voices of the families of the victims of the Omagh bombing are listened to. As this legislation makes its way through the Oireachtas, we are reminded of how the British Government has hidden behind national security concerns for its failures to disclose vital information to Troubles-related victims. We saw, for example, the refusal of the British Government to establish a public inquiry into the 1997 murder of Sean Brown.”
“I would make that case to the Minister to reconsider that position. The list of people the Minister is refusing to meet seems to be getting longer and longer. That is unfortunate, especially because I can point to instances where people who have been campaigning have met the Minister and those engagements have been productive and worthwhile. The Minister mentioned that the justice committee co-operated with his office in waiving pre-legislative scrutiny to allow the Bill to move swiftly through the Oireachtas, because at the end of the day we all want a system in place that has the full support of the families and victims of the Omagh bombing. That decision to waive pre-legislative scrutiny might not have been the same had members realised there was going to be an issue in terms of engagement with the families.”
“I remind the Minister that in December last, when he announced the drafting of this legislation, he stated that "the legitimate needs and expectations of victims’ families and survivors who have long searched for truth and accountability" would be at the heart of this approach. I would question how the Minister can marry making such a statement with refusing to meet with members of families and survivors. I urge the Minister to listen to the families directly in relation to concerns they have about this legislation. The families were also taken aback at the fact they were given no sight of the legislation before it was published. The unfortunate consequence of that is that it has left families in some cases feeling unimportant to a process that should have had them at the core, which would have been trauma informed.”
“While every jurisdiction has lawful national security issues - we all recognise that - the question is how wide or narrow these are and how they are defined in law. We have seen national security clauses used as a vague, undefined concept by the British Government to effectively veto the release of information that it did not want to release, so the way the concept is applied here is of paramount importance. The families and survivors of Omagh also have genuine concerns that the current draft may give rise to difficulties that could undermine its intended purpose, and these concerns need to be addressed. I was taken aback and surprised when a representative for the families told me the Minister is refusing to meet with the families at this stage.”
“Concerns have also been raised that national security limits could restrict disclosure because governments, and particularly that of our nearest neighbours, often protect intelligence services and operations. Under the terms of this Bill, officials may decline to provide evidence and broad security claims could be used to justify withholding sensitive or potentially embarrassing information. Far too often in the past we have seen the British Government, in particular, misuse these type of provisions in relation to national security for failing to disclose information related to collusion, for example. I want to say clearly that national security must not be used to conceal failures or wrongdoings.”
“The mechanism provided for in the Bill is modelled on that contained in section 3 of the Criminal Justice (International Co-operation) Act 2019 for the taking of oral testimony from members of An Garda Síochána for the purposes of Troubles-related inquests and this legislation follows on from a memorandum of understanding that was agreed in April 2025. Under the Bill, any provision of oral sworn evidence to the inquiry by former members of An Garda Síochána, former members of the Defence Forces, former Ministers and former officeholders of Departments of State will be done on a voluntary basis, and there are some concerns regarding the voluntary nature of this evidence and how that might work in practice.”
“The families, who have campaigned for 27 years for that inquiry, deserve full transparency and full disclosure about the events that led to the killing of their loved ones. The Government declined to establish a parallel independent inquiry in this jurisdiction, something a number of the families had been calling for, but in the absence of that, the fullest co-operation possible with the existing inquiry is needed. The Bill allows the Irish authorities to take sworn evidence from Garda members, Defence Forces personnel, civil servants and former Ministers to support the Omagh bombing inquiry. It sets procedures for requesting, giving and protecting such evidence, provides judicial oversight and amends existing international co-operation law to facilitate the process.”