News | MATT CARTHY TD

Monaghan Minor Injuries Unit alone in not operating 7-day service

Monaghan Minor Injuries Unit alone in not operating 7-day service – Matt Carthy TD

The Minor Injuries Unit at Monaghan Hospital is the only such unit that does not operate on a 7-day week basis and is alone in not opening on Bank Holidays. It also has the shortest opening hours of any of the 10 MIUs across the state.

This week, Cavan Monaghan Dáil Deputy Matt Carthy said that there is no justification for these restricted operating hours within Monaghan’s MIU as figures released to Sinn Féin show that the unit had almost as many attendees in 2021 as another unit that operates seven days per week with substantially longer opening hours.

Deputy Carthy confirmed that he has been working closely with his party’s Health Spokesperson, David Cullinane, on this issue. He said that there is an inarguable case for the opening hours at Monaghan Hospital’s Minor Injuries Unit to be expanded and for fees associated with MIU presentations to be scrapped.

Monaghan Minor Injuries Unit operates just five days a week, excluding bank holidays, and is open from 9am to 5pm. The other Minor Injuries Units in the state are located at Hospitals in Bantry, Ennis, Dundalk, Mallow, Cork Mercy, Nenagh, Roscommon, Loughlinstown St Columcille’s and Limerick St John’s. All of these operate on a seven-day week basis, including bank holidays, and open from 8am until between 6pm and 8pm each day.

But, according to figures released to Sinn Féin by the HSE, Monaghan MIU received 5,374 attendees last year, almost identical to the number attending Bantry MIU despite significantly lower operating times. While the attendance rates for other MIUs are higher, Deputy Carthy claims this is entirely understandable considering their much broader opening hours.

Cavan Monaghan Sinn Féin TD, Matt Carthy, has repeatedly told Minister Stephen Donnelly that the Minor Injuries Unit should be utilised in order to ease pressure on both GP services and A&E departments. He confirmed this week that he has again written to the Minister urging his direct intervention to expand Monaghan Minor Injuries Unit.

Deputy Carthy said this week:

“Monaghan Minor Injuries Unit is a service that should be widely utilised and I encourage people to attend when appropriate.

“But, the potential of the service provided is undermined by the reduced opening times. Expanding the hours and days would be the single most impactful intervention government can take to revitalise Monaghan Hospital.

“The decision of previous Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael governments to remove services from Monaghan Hospital continues to have serious negative repercussions. A&E services were withdrawn from Monaghan and resulted in drastic overcrowding at Cavan and Drogheda hospitals.

“The Minor Injuries Unit can serve to ease pressure on both GP practices and A & E departments.

“But Minister Donnelly confirmed to me that he has no intention of seeking the expansion of this service. Likewise there has been no movement to remove the €75 fee for attendees despite the fact that the HSE cannot even outline how much funds this fee raises and the clear evidence that the fee acts as a disincentive – leading to further demands on GPs and A&E.

“For Sinn Fein, it will remain a priority for us to force the expansion of the Minor Injuries Unit at Monaghan Hospital and the removal of the associated fees”.

NOTE:

Hospital MIU Operating Hours Days 2021 Attendees

Bantry 8am – 7.30pm 7days 5,443

Ennis 8am-8pm 7days 11,222

Louth 9am-8pm 7days 11,327

Mallow 8am-8pm 7days 7,505

Cork Mercy 8am-8pm 7days 16,406

Monaghan 9am-5pm 5days 5,374

Nenagh 8am-8pm 7days 9,971

Roscommon 8am-8pm 7days 9,336

St. Columcilles 8am-6pm 7days 8,747

Limerick St. Johns 8am-7pm 7days 12,688

ENDS

Crazy that government increased Home Heating Oil costs during cost-of-living emergency

Crazy that government increased Home Heating Oil costs during cost-of-living emergency – Matt Carthy TD

Sinn Féin TD, Matt Carthy, has described the decision by government to proceed with another carbon tax hike on Sunday last as crazy. He said: “It is beyond maddening that, in the midst of a cost-of-living emergency, government have increased the cost of home heating oil and other fuels through a carbon tax hike. This is not climate action – it’s just making peoples lives harder. The definition of out-of-touch.”

Last week Sinn Féin had brought a motion to the Dáil which called for the increase to be halted. That motion also sought for all excise on Home Heating oil to be lifted during the current price crisis. The motion also responded to government’s attempts to ban the sale of turf, a proposal described by Sinn Féin as unfair, unworkable and counter-productive. The Sinn Féin motion was voted down by Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael and Green Party TDs.

During the debate, Deputy Carthy criticised the fact that not a single back-bench government TD attended the discourse or spoke on the motion.

He told the Dáil:

“For the purposes of clarification, let me be clear that Sinn Féin supports measures that protect public health. We also support measures that protect our environment and deliver climate action.

“Where we differ from the Government is that we insist that such measures are fair, workable and credible, concepts that are alien to this coalition.

“In fact, at the heart of this Government’s approach is an inherent unfairness.

“We now have an all too predictable cycle. Someone in the Government, usually Eamon Ryan, decides that the way to address a problem is by making the lives of ordinary people more difficult. Then, when the Opposition points to the fact that such a move is counter-productive, we are accused of being populist. All the while, we have Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael Deputies, as we have seen in the past week over the turf issue, running around their constituencies crying that they themselves are opposed to the moves, as if they were detached from the fact that it is only through their consent that the Government can proceed. When those same Deputies have an opportunity to make a stand, like tonight, they run for cover.

“It is like a wilderness across the floor of the Chamber. They are nowhere to be found, avoiding the debate before they meekly return to the Chamber to cast their vote and then quickly scurry back to their constituencies in the hope their voters do not notice the duplicity.

“Where are the backbenchers tonight who have been telling us and their constituents that they support everything in the Sinn Féin motion? Where are those Ministers who were conveniently leaking that they were passionate and forceful on this issue at Cabinet? Where is Minister Eamon Ryan tonight? He told me in a radio debate on Sunday that he was looking forward to this debate. What happened since?

“The motion is essentially about people being able to heat their own homes. Some, and it is a small minority, burn turf. All of the evidence shows that that minority is getting smaller because people move from turf when they have a credible, affordable alternative.

“However, as usual, rather than ensure that people have that alternative, those in the Government see fit to give them a kicking. They demonise those who have a different life than they do and they insinuate that those who use turf are responsible for public health issues for which they are not culpable, in the same way that they blame those who have no option but to drive to work for climate change while turning a blind eye to the multinational corporations that are actually responsible for the bulk of emissions.

“How ironic that during the period when Government Ministers have been at sixes and sevens on whether families can heat their homes with a turf fire, approval was granted to yet another data centre that will actually use about the same amount of electricity as entire counties almost. Of course, they voted against a moratorium on data centres when they had the chance because every time a proposition comes before this House that would make a positive climate impact but would face up to corporate interests, the Government shirks away. Yet, time and again it is willing to stick the boot into ordinary workers and families who have no alternatives and through punitive actions undermine public support for climate action and public health measures.

“For those who use turf to heat their homes, in the vast majority of cases the only available alternative is to use their home heating oil central heating. But, the cost of home heating oil has more than doubled in the last year. The Government, despite all of the rhetoric from the Minister, has not done a tap, not a single thing, to help ease the burden in regard to home heating oil.

“What does it intend to do now? It plans to increase the cost of home heating oil next week. If there was a semblance of fact around Government assertions that the turf ban is about public health, what it would actually be doing, rather than increasing home heating oil costs further, is supporting this motion and removing excise duty entirely during this cost of living emergency.

“This is a comprehensive motion before the Dáil. In a nutshell, it calls for the Government to scrap plans to ban the sale of turf, to cancel the carbon tax increase due next week and to remove excise duty temporarily on home heating oil.

“I was hoping to use this opportunity to plead with the Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael backbenchers but they are not here. I do not know if they are in their offices rather than the Dáil bar but if they are listening, let me say this: if they want to make a genuine stand for their constituents, for those hard-pressed workers and families who have been squeezed to the absolute maximum, then they will come in here and reject the pathetic amendment the Government has put forward and support in full and with enthusiasm the Sinn Féin motion, rather than random leaks to journalists and a pretence that somehow they are on the side of the ordinary people who have borne the brunt of this Government’s mismanagement”.

ENDS

Carthy challenges GSOC on delays into Shane O’Farrell investigation

Carthy challenges GSOC on delays into Shane O’Farrell investigation

Cavan Monaghan Sinn Féin TD, Matt Carthy, has again raised in the Dáil the case of Shane O’Farrell from Carrickmacross who was killed in a hit-and run in August 2011.

Deputy Carthy called on the government to initiate a public enquiry into the killing and the actions of state agencies, including the Gardaí, before and after Shane’s death.

In the Dáil chamber during Taoiseach’s Questions Deputy Carthy reminded Micháel Martin of his remarks while in opposition on the case. And last Thursday, at the Public Accounts Committee, Carthy challenged the Garda Siochána Ombudsman Commission (GSCOC) into their role in investigating Garda failures on the case.

Speaking during Taoiseach’s questions last Tuesday Carthy said:

“The scoping exercise into the death of Shane O’Farrell was established by the previous Government more than three years ago. By their nature, scoping exercises are expected to take weeks, possibly months but not years, and yet three years on from the initiation of that exercise we have no idea as to when that work will be finished.

“Members will recall that nobody bar the previous Cabinet wanted this scoping exercise. Both Houses of the Oireachtas unanimously passed motions calling for the establishment of an inquiry. In 2018, the Taoiseach, when on this side of the House, stated: “In all honesty and sincerity, it is time the Oireachtas responded in the only way possible to Shane’s death, which is the establishment of an inquiry.” The Taoiseach was right then and his case is even more valid now.

“The failures of the policing and justice system that led up to Shane’s death and the actions thereafter and to this day are significant not only to his family, but are in the wider public interest. We acknowledge the independence of Judge Haughton who is carrying out the scoping exercise and we know that Government cannot interfere, but will the Taoiseach accept that the scoping exercise as a process has not worked and that it has become yet another protracted delay to advancing the inquiry that we have all agreed is necessary?

“The Taoiseach took a very firm stance on this matter when in opposition, and rightly so. I ask that he follow it through”.

GSOC before Public Accounts Committee

On Thursday last GSOC commissioners were before the Public Accounts Committee. In his intervention, Deputy Carthy utilised the example of the Shane O’Farrell case to emphasise that GSOC often, rather than delivering answers, serves to delay and frustrate the process for grieving families.

The exchange went as follows:

Matt Carthy: We have a remit over value for money and ensuring adequate expenditure of the public moneys allocated to our guests’ organisation. It goes beyond general checks and balances and involves a consideration of the length of time investigations take and the results that follow on from them. We cannot do that without reflecting on some of GSOC’s previous investigations.

The investigation I am a little familiar with is the one that occurred subsequent to the death of Shane O’Farrell. If I understand it correctly, there were two different investigations. What was the distinction between how they operated?

Hugh Hume (GSOC): I am not exactly sure, but my understanding is that a number of allegations were made at the start and they were being dealt with slightly differently. At that point, GSOC brought them all under one umbrella and conducted a criminal investigation in respect of 56 separate allegations that had been made. Those 56 allegations were investigated and a determination was made that there was no case of criminality. There was then a disciplinary investigation, to which my colleague, Ms Logan, has alluded. That is a process we currently have to go through where we have to reset and start looking at the case again with a view to potential disciplinary matters. That disciplinary investigation examined 13 separate allegations and a recommendation was sent to the Garda Commissioner, who I believe took some action on the matter.

Matt Carthy: Was the section 101 report on the criminal investigation?

Hugh Hume: Such an investigation ends in what is called a section 101 report, which is a report that comes to the commission following a criminal investigation.

Matt Carthy: And the disciplinary investigation is reported on under section 97.

Hugh Hume: Correct.

Matt Carthy: What instigated those investigations? Was it the complaints by the family or a direction by the Minister?

Hugh Hume: It was a combination of all of those factors. There was information from the Minister and the family had come to GSOC as well. It is quite a while back and I was not in the office at the time, but my understanding is those all came from a number of different sources and GSOC brought them together into one cohesive investigation, which included the 56 allegations.

Matt Carthy: Let me put it a different way. If the family alone had provided information, would that have been sufficient for GSOC to conduct the investigation?

Hugh Hume: An investigation had started on the basis of what the family had provided.

Matt Carthy: In terms of the criminal and disciplinary strands, who conducted the investigations?

Hugh Hume: A senior investigating officer in Longford conducted the investigations.

Matt Carthy: Was that a Garda officer or a GSOC officer?

Hugh Hume: I beg the Deputy’s pardon. It was a GSOC officer.

Matt Carthy: Was that the case for both investigations?

Hugh Hume: Yes. After they were completed—–

Matt Carthy: Was it the same individual who carried out both investigations?

Hugh Hume: It was the same team.

Matt Carthy: It was an internal GSOC team. The first report, the section 101 report, came six years after the original investigation started. Does Mr. Hume consider that to be an acceptable timeframe?

Hugh Hume: It is certainly a very long timeframe. There is no doubt about that. I was not there at the time, to understand all the nuances. While I have read the background material in anticipation of the Deputy’s question and examined the file, there were 56 separate allegations. It all had to be dealt with criminally across a broad spectrum of activity that preceded the unfortunate terrible accident, and succeeded the incident as well, as the Deputy will be perhaps aware. It was a broad nature.

Matt Carthy: In terms of going forward, does Mr. Hume consider six years for an investigation of that type to be an acceptable length of time?

Hugh Hume: I could not comment on all the nuances and the stymies or the opportunities that occurred during that time.

Emily Logan (GSOC): I want to say, in terms of being fair and giving the Deputy an answer on the standard, but separate to the individual case that the Deputy is speaking about, the answer to the question as to whether six years is acceptable is “No”. Mr. Hume is talking specifically. I am not talking about that case. I am just talking about a general standard for this commission. We would not consider that acceptable.

Matt Carthy: In terms of the disciplinary aspect of the case, that was even longer again because it was subsequent to the completion of the criminal aspect of the commission’s investigation.

Hugh Hume: It followed on in a relatively short period of time. I have not got the exact time. Within a few months, it followed on from GSOC, I believe, to the Garda Commissioner.

Matt Carthy: As Mr. Hume mentioned, GSOC recommended disciplinary action in respect of three gardaí following that investigation.

Hugh Hume: That is correct.

Matt Carthy: Is Mr. Hume aware that in respect of two of those the disciplinary procedures or penalties that were applied were subsequently withdrawn by the Garda Commissioner?

Hugh Hume: I am aware there was some sort of court action and the outworkings of that was the setting aside of those proceedings.

Matt Carthy: After all of that time in terms of the amount of work that GSOC has put in, is Mr. Hume satisfied that there was an appropriate outcome at the end of all GSOC’s efforts and the expenditure that was invested in this case?

Hugh Hume: It is not what GSOC feels about the thing. There are far more important people’s concerns in this investigation than GSOC’s concerns, in terms of the family themselves and their feeling of hurt. Clearly, we work to try to deliver the best and fairest result for everyone.

Matt Carthy: Mr. Hume is correct, in terms of the family being an important aspect. Given that they instigated essentially the investigation, why has the family not received the full copies of the reports that were published in this case?

Mr. Justice Rory MacCabe (GSOC Chair): As the Deputy will be aware, there is a subsequent inquiry going on that is in the hands of retired Judge Haughton. That is effectively a further hurdle that has appeared on this particular long road. The Deputy would have to address his query to Judge Haughton and his inquiry in that regard.

Matt Carthy: I have to say I do not buy that. GSOC carried out the investigations. GSOC concluded two reports. In respect of the section 101 report, the family have received summaries, not the full report. My understanding is that the same is the case for the section 97 report. These are reports in GSOC’s possession.

Whatever Judge Haughton is doing in relation to his scoping inquiry, he needs to be let do that but that does not prevent GSOC from providing those reports to the family. In fact, the Garda Commissioner is on the record as saying that these reports have been compiled by GSOC and that publication relates to Mr. Justice MacCabe’s organisation alone. My question is, will GSOC provide those reports to the family considering they are the instigators?

As Mr. Hume correctly said, they are the most important part of this procedure.

Following this case, I am aware of some of the details and most of the revelations about the fact that the person who killed Shane should have been imprisoned at the time, had been in breach of multiple bail conditions, and had received a custodial sentence that was never pursued and that he never served. While he was supposed to be signing on at a Garda station on a daily basis for a period of that time, he was in custody north of the Border.

It is a litany of failures. The real answers and the causation of all of those failures have never been revealed. GSOC, the organisation that one would have hoped would have been part of finding those answers, instead was subjugated to a significant delay during which time every other actor in this process refused to answer questions. The then Minister for Justice, the Department of Justice, the Garda, the DPP and the Courts Service – everybody who was responsible for failures in this case – stated for almost eight years that they could not answer questions because GSOC was carrying out an investigation.

Now GSOC is coming in here and stating that it cannot provide information because there is a scoping inquiry taking place. My question is, when the scoping inquiry is concluded what will be the excuse for refusing to provide this family with answers as to why their son was killed by a man who should have been imprisoned at the time?

Justice Rory MacCabe: All I can tell the Deputy is that Judge Haughton made 114 requests for information from GSOC. GSOC, in October last, responded to these. Our legal unit is liaising with Judge Haughton at present. I would like to be able to give the Deputy a more positive response than that.

Matt Carthy: Is there a preclusion on GSOC providing information to any other third party that has been provided to Judge Haughton? Is it the case that the scoping inquiry has said that once GSOC provides it with that information, it cannot then provide it to another person?

Justice Rory MacCabe: I cannot answer that for certain. We are respecting the work that is being carried out by Judge Haughton. That is the only thing I can say to the Deputy at this stage.

Matt Carthy: Can Justice MacCabe not assure us today that GSOC will provide those reports to the family of the late Shane O’Farrell?

Justice Rory MacCabe: I cannot give the Deputy that assurance as of now.

PAC Cathoirleach, Brian Stanley: Mr. Justice MacCabe may be on the spot a bit in this regard. Perhaps he would come back to the committee with a piece of correspondence around whether that can or cannot be, and if it cannot be, why it cannot be at this stage.

Justice Rory MacCabe: Certainly.

ENDS

Carthy accuses Minister Ryan of failing to engage on North South Interconnector

Carthy accuses Minister Ryan of failing to engage on North South Interconnector

Cavan Monaghan Sinn Féin TD, Matt Carthy, has accused the Environment Minister, Eamon Ryan, of refusing to engage with communities regarding the North South Interconnector.

Deputy Carthy raised the issue of the Interconnector in oral questions to the Minister for Environment, Climate and Communications in the Dáil last week. He asked Minister Ryan when the so-called review into the Interconnector would be finalised, noting that he had no confidence that the terms of reference would allow for the “type of assessment that is required”.

The Sinn Féin representative said that the refusal of EirGrid and government representatives to listen to local communities has resulted in a delay in the delivery of the project. Had the project been undergrounded, he said, it is likely that the Interconnector would be completed by now.

Deputy Carthy’s Sinn Féin colleague and spokesperson on the Environment, Darren O’Rourke, intervened to accuse EirGrid’s approach as ‘pig-headedness’ and saying that ‘we should never ended up here’. Interestingly, a government representative, Fine Gael’s Alan Dillion relayed a similar experience in his own constituency whereby experts contended that an overhead powerline should be developed. Eventually, he said, “It went underground and not a peep out of the community has occurred since, which is probably the most important message I have for this debate.”

The discussion went as follows:

Deputy Matt Carthy: My question relates to the review into the north-south interconnector.

When will the review be completed and when will the report be provided and published? That is not to say that I have any confidence that the review is going to deliver the type of assessment that is required, because the terms of reference have been so narrow. However, I would like an update from the Minister in respect of the interconnector project more broadly.

Minister Eamon Ryan: The North-South interconnector is critical to improving the efficient operation of the all-island integrated single electricity market and increasing security of electricity supply in Ireland and Northern Ireland. It will also facilitate the achievement of the goal of generating up to 80% of our electricity from renewable sources by 2030. A resilient and well-connected energy infrastructure is vital for Ireland’s economic well-being and the ability to respond to the future needs of energy consumers.

The option of undergrounding the North-South interconnector has been comprehensively assessed on several occasions. Most recently, the key finding from the international expert commission’s report of October 2018 was that an overhead line remains the most appropriate option for this critical electricity infrastructure. Notwithstanding this, I decided to commission a further short review to assess if the overall finding from the 2018 report remains valid. Formal procurement of international experts in electricity grid infrastructure was completed last September. The international experts are continuing their work on the report, which has taken longer than expected, but I hope to receive it shortly.

I am interested to have a discussion. I said earlier that we always look at all options and discuss all energy matters. I would be very interested to hear what Sinn Féin sees, both North and South, as the timelines, the urgency and the preferred models. I have a real fear, across a whole variety of different areas, that we might lose what was seen as one of the significant developments of the last two decades, which was an all-island energy approach and a single electricity market. I fear that if we do not quickly build the scale of interconnection that we need, we will not see industrial development in the North and we will not see economic opportunities, particularly in those Border counties that are most in need and would most benefit from an integrated, synchronised transmission system which can deliver power locally to the people and to the industries that employ people in those areas. This is a critical economic issue, north and south of the Border.

Matt Carthy: For the avoidance of any doubt, I want to see the development of the North-South interconnector but I want it to happen in a way that has public acceptance.

Here is the irony of the situation: had the Minister listened to the communities and to the expert advice the last time he was in government, I believe the North-South interconnector would be completed by now. Instead, we have had a decade of wasted opportunity because that principle of public acceptance that is so crucial was not heeded. In Belgium, for example, the ALEGrO project is happening underground precisely because of that principle of public acceptance being heeded.

The Minister mentioned in response to an earlier question that EirGrid has learned from previous mistakes. I believe it has learned from its experiences regarding the North-South interconnector but it has learned everywhere except on the route of the North-South interconnector.

EirGrid has decided to bull-headedly pursue a strategy that is leading it directly into conflict with local communities. What I am asking the Minister is whether he is prioritising the completion of this project or prioritising adherence to the stated objectives of EirGird. If he prioritises the former, what he will actually do is commission a real analysis of how we deliver this project in a way in which communities, society, businesses and this House can be unanimous in seeing the project delivered.

Eamon Ryan: It is almost 18 years since we started looking at this. I was a member of the relevant joint committee at the time, and we met with EirGrid and started looking at all of these options. If, as the Deputy says, his preferred option is underground DC cable connectivity, it seems to me that one of the aspects, one of the key truths around that, is that it would see no development in Armagh, Tyrone, Cavan, Monaghan and other Border areas. It would not actually be part of an electricity grid system which could then be used for industrial development and for getting a balanced, strong network. There is always the underlying question of what this connection is for. To my mind, it is a core spine of our key electricity system. I understand the issue of listening to the public, getting environmental planning consent and trying to bring everyone with us, but, in the end, politics sometimes comes down to hard decisions. Do we want to see economic development of the Border region or would it be fair to see it just as a transfer zone between Dublin and Belfast, where all the economic activity takes place?

Matt Carthy: I would suggest, in the first instance, that the Minister does not have the audacity to talk about economic development in the Border region considering his actions in regard to the N2 in an area where we have no public transport.

This is not just about what Sinn Féin says. The independent review that the Minister has cited described undergrounding the North-South interconnector as a credible option. It made other determinations on other evaluations as to whether or not the process should be put overhead or underground.

Here is the problem: we are now entering into a situation where EirGrid is going to be in direct confrontation with landowners and local communities and, in my view, that is going to lead to significant further delays. The Minister recalled that it is 18 years, almost two decades, since this project was first mooted.

EirGrid has taken a particularly pig-headed approach, as I said, but Deputy Ryan is the Minister. He is the person who can actually carry out a full appraisal as to whether or not an underground option is feasible. In my view, it absolutely is. If the Minister had in a previous position undertaken that work, as I said, we would be in a much better position today and would perhaps even have seen delivery of this integral piece of infrastructure.

Deputy Darren O’Rourke (SF): I want to come in on that point. We should never have ended up here, and that is my firm opinion. A central tenet of EirGrid’s current plan is community engagement and the Minister points towards learning the lessons of the past. We can see it in Grid West, on which there was huge confrontation and resistance, and that is going underground for the Connacht project. This is a matter of procedural justice and EirGrid is just being belligerently pigheaded in this regard. The most recent review is the latest example of it.

Deputy Alan Farrell (FG): My contribution has nothing to do with the constituency politics or even the party politics of this. I can only talk about my own experience with the connection that came through Rush back in 2010. I can tell the House that political careers were created on it and then, on the back of the decision, political careers ended at the next local elections because people got it wrong. What troubles me about this discussion, and I remember reading up on it a number of years ago, is that the sector will determine what is the most appropriate means of getting the energy from A to B but we have constant bickering at a local level, with people telling others “This is the way it should be”. In Rush in north County Dublin, everybody wanted it overground and, as I said, careers were created on the back of it. It went underground and not a peep out of the community has occurred since, which is probably the most important message I have for this debate.

Eamon Ryan: We need to get this right. We need to get it right in energy terms and we need to get it right in economic terms. I want to flag my real concern that, because we have not been able to get agreement, there is real potential for a fissure and it will be the North of Ireland which will suffer and the Border counties. That is not what we want to see. In response to Deputy Carthy, I have every interest in seeing balanced regional development and seeing counties Monaghan and Cavan and every county in the North survive. I was very proud and pleased in my previous existence as energy Minister to be able to help to set up the all-island electricity market. I believe we will not effectively meet our climate targets except if we work on an all-island basis. We are at real risk of losing that. We are at real risk of not seeing economic development in that region because—–

Matt Carthy: Because of the Minister’s actions.

Eamon Ryan: As I said, the Deputy may be in a position some day where those Government decisions have to be taken. I do not think that in those circumstances he would see the civil servants or the public officials as pig-headed. I think they are looking to deliver the best projects for the public good.

Matt Carthy: It has been held up for 20 years.

Eamon Ryan: My fear is that that may not be possible because we cannot get political agreement on doing anything. That is the real issue that we have to be concerned with. It is the politics of this that we have to get right, as well as the energy analysis.

Matt Carthy: The Minister will not engage.

ENDS

“Agri-diesel excise reduction to be undone after just 7 weeks”

“Agri-diesel excise reduction to be undone after just 7 weeks” – Matt Carthy TD

Sinn Féin spokesperson on Agriculture Matt Carthy TD has said that the limited action taken by government on agri-diesel costs ‘will be undone just 7 weeks after it was introduced.’

In a move widely derided as insufficient, the government reduced excise on agri-diesel from €138.17 to €120.55 per 1,000 litres, or 2c per litre, from March 10^th.

However, the carbon tax element of excise duty on the fuel is set to increase on the 1^st May – bringing the charge back to €138.17!

Teachta Carthy said:

“The 2cent per litre excise cut to Agri-diesel was minimal and insufficient. But farmers and contractors will be astounded to learn that the reduction will be undone after just seven weeks if the Carbon Tax hike goes ahead on the 1^st May.

“This was confirmed by Minister Pascal Donohoe at the Oireachtas Finance Committed who acknowledged that the excise take on Agri-diesel will return to its March 9^thlevel in May and that it will then increase further to €158.50 in September when the temporary measure expires.

“These figures are not impacted by the criminal Russian invasion of Ukraine, by international factors, or by any other global influences – this is the money that government is charging on agricultural-diesel that they could and should reduce”.

“Essentially, farmers and farm contractors have got seven weeks of a minimal fuel reduction at a time when input costs are pushing them to the brink.

Rebate for Farm Contractors

“At the Oireachtas Finance Committee I also sought clarification from Minister Donohoe that the review into the status of farm contractors regarding carbon tax rebates is finally underway.

“Currently, farmers can avail of a rebate on the carbon tax if their income is sufficient. However, the same provision is not in place for Farm Contractors despite the fact that they are carting out agriculture work.

“Contractors have no choice but to pass on the charge to their customers – effectively making it an additional cost to farmers.

“The Department of Finance promised a review in 2019, which the Minister has repeatedly deferred.

“The Minister has now confirmed that it is underway, and he intends to complete the exercise prior to the budget, though when pressed would not commit to bringing forward measures in the budget arising from that review.

“There can be no further delays. During a period of escalating input costs, farmers need support. One such support must be through a rebate of the carbon tax for those doing essential agriculture work for which there is no fuel alternative yet.”

ENDS

Officials that drag children with disabilities through the courts “should do so at own expense”

Officials that drag children with disabilities through the courts “should do so at own expense” – Carthy tells Dáil

Sinn Féin TD, Matt Carthy, has hit out at the attitude of those senior officials within the HSE that have “dragged the families of children with disabilities through the courts”. He said those families who went to court did so in order to secure rights that are laid down in legislation. He called on the Minister for Health to demand that, in future, should officials wish to legally challenge those families, that they should do so at their own costs.

Deputy Carthy was speaking in the Dáil on a Sinn Féin Private Members motion on Childrens’ Disability Services which included a demand that government adhere to the provisions of the Disability Act. The motion was moved by Deputy Carthy’s Cavan Monaghan colleague, Pauline Tully.

Teachta Carthy said:

“I commend Deputy Pauline Tully on her tenacity on this issue and on her representation of those tens of thousands of families who want nothing more than what their child is entitled to.

“The High Court has ruled that the HSE’s AON process is operating outside the law and denying children with disabilities their rights, as set out in the Disability Act.

“Let that sink in for us all. That an Opposition party is introducing a Private Members’ motion that essentially asks the Government to stop breaking the law, stop allowing an agency under its control to break the law, and stop denying children their rights.

“I do not doubt the sincerity of the Minister or Minister of State on this issue. But the crux is accountability.

“HSE representatives appeared before the Joint Committee on Children where Deputies Pauline Tully and David Cullinane engaged with them. The officials were asked what they needed and their answer was that we should actually scrap the little protection that our children with disabilities have – the legal provision. As the person responsible and approved by this House to oversee our health services, the Minister should drag those officials in and threaten them with their jobs unless their attitude changes.

“If I am correct, the Minister ‘noted’ the remarks of the head of the HSE on a potential appeal of the High Court ruling. I suggest that he tells the CEO of the HSE that if he wants to appeal the ruling, the cost can be met from his wages.

“I suggest that the Minister, as overseer of the Department that gives the HSE its budget, tells the CEO and every senior manager in the HSE that the next time they decide to drag family a child with a disability through the courts, they can do so at their own expense.

“Because they do not have the authority of this House to spend the money of the taxpayers of Ireland to drag families of children with disabilities through the quagmire of the legal system.

“The message from this House should be unanimous, clear and heeded by the HSE. It should stop breaking the law and treating children with disabilities with disrespect and start providing them with their rights and entitlements under the Disability Act and the services they deserve”.

ENDS

“Government Electric Vehicle grants favour wealthier people who have access to public transport”

“Government Electric Vehicle grants favour wealthier people who have access to public transport” – SF TD tells Public Accounts Committee

The Irish government grants for brand new Electric Vehicles favour wealthier people who have public transport options – poorer people who do not have access to public transport pay for those grants through Carbon Taxes.

So said Sinn Féin TD, Matt Carthy, following an exchange with the SEAI (Sustainable Energy Authority of Ireland) at the Dáil’s Public Accounts committee.

Deputy Carthy said that people in counties such as Monaghan were hardest hit by the governments Carbon Tax charges, but these taxes were then distributed to those who had more money and lived closer to public transport which isn’t available in rural counties.

The Cavan Monaghan TD was questioning SEAI representatives including Mr. William Walsh, Chief Executive Officer and Mr. Declan Meally, Director of business, public sector and transport.

The exchange went as follows:

Matt Carthy: I wish to touch on electric vehicles.

The SEAI annual accounts highlight that half of drivers are unfamiliar with electric vehicles and how they work. Less than a quarter say they will consider purchasing an electric vehicle for their next purchase. I think 6,000 EVs had been sold by mid-August of last year. It is projected that 175,000 will be sold by 2025 according to the Department of Transport.

Is it Mr. Meally’s understanding that we will sell 50,000 or 55,000 vehicles per year over the next three years?

Mr. Declan Meally: There are 55,000 on the road moment. Regarding getting that to 175,000, in the past year 110,000 new cars were sold. We have doubled the number of cars that have received grant aid each year. The 55,000, which is where we are now, was actually where the trajectory was going to take us to – the 45,000 by the end of last year which we have hit. In terms of what we can sell between this year and next year, we believe there is definitely the potential and the appetite.

Matt Carthy: Does Mr. Meally believe it would be 55,000 for the next three years?

Declan Meally: There are 55,000 already there. In terms of the next—–

Matt Carthy: What will be sold each year?

Declan Meally: We see that there is a demand for at least 50,000 cars this year. The supply chain issues with semiconductors and with supplies coming from Russia and Ukraine due to unfortunate circumstances there are constraining some of the supply. Definitely the demand is there and we are seeing the demand increasing. We are on target to hit that number, the 175,000.

Matt Carthy: Regarding the target for the period from 2025 to 2030, I was trying to extrapolate out what would be expected. I have come to an average of around 169,000 cars per year for those years. Would that be correct?

Declan Meally: I am not sure in terms of the average on that. A number of factors affect getting to the 2030 target. The cars are becoming cheaper. The battery technology is becoming better. There are longer ranges for the cars that are there. The signal is being given that people will not be able to buy a new petrol or diesel car by 2030. All those factors are changing behaviour and changing people’s attitudes. The survey the Deputy saw from 2020 has changed dramatically. We have done a lot of work with the dealerships. They are saying that most of the demand from people coming into their dealerships nowadays is for electric cars.

Matt Carthy: I understand the general points. I am trying to get to the specifics in terms of how many electric vehicles will actually be sold and the benefits involved. We must consider this matter in the context of average sales of electric vehicles of 169,000 over a period of time.

To put that in context, car sales at the peak of the Celtic tiger were of the order of 180,000 per year. Our target is to reach the sale of 169,000 electric vehicles per year at a time we are estimating public transport journeys will increase by 15%. There is also investment going into active travel. The Minister for Transport talks about the 15-minute city and all of that.

How realistic, therefore, is it that we would sell 169,000 electric vehicles each year for five years? Is that environmentally beneficial when public transport options may be available to those people who may be in a position to purchase electric vehicles?

Declan Meally: The ambition is to reduce our transport emissions. There are currently approximately 13 million tonnes of emissions, much of which relates to private driving. We want to get people out of their cars and onto public transport at the same time as moving our car stock to electric vehicles. Behaviours and habits will change. We anticipate a fundamental transition between now and 2030. Will everybody need to own a car by 2030? That is another question we will be asking. We are constantly looking at this issue with the Department of Transport. The trajectory towards the target for electric cars shows we are on the right path. We are considering other options with the Department of Transport to make sure there are also public transport options.

Matt Carthy: I have not made up the figures around the targets for electric vehicle sales. These are the Government’s established targets.

In respect of those targets, is there a further breakdown of those targets for specific locations to deal with, for example, the urban-rural divide? What are the demographics involved in terms of income streams?

Our guests will know that researchers from Trinity College and Queen’s University Belfast have reported that electric vehicles are luxury goods. That is reflected in the sales statistics. Electric vehicles favour those who are wealthier and live in areas where there are public transport options. They do not favour those who are poorer and live in areas where there is no public transport option. Such people are hardest hit by the taxes that pay for the grants to fund these electric vehicles in the first place.

Do our guests have sub-targets within the target for the overall numbers of electric vehicles that are expected to be sold?

Declan Meally: We do not have a breakdown of targets; we just have the national target. That is what we are working towards and we are on that trajectory. Electric vehicles are sold right across the board. We want to see as many electric cars as possible brought into the general stock of cars. They will then become second-hand cars, go into the fleet and work their way right through it. That is where the grants are focused.

Matt Carthy: The idea is that someone who happens to be wealthy and lives across the road from a DART station will get a grant towards a brand new electric vehicle this year and in a couple of years’ time will sell it to some poor cod down the country who has been paying carbon taxes to pay for the grant in the first place.

Mr. William Walsh: I have a couple of high-level comments to make. Electric vehicles differ from internal combustion engines in their technology. I remind the Deputy of a time when widescreen televisions were luxury goods. That was not long ago. Many people now have widescreen televisions because they are available at a very cheap rate. We have seen improved technology in electric vehicles.

Matt Carthy: The Government did not give a grant to those people who were already in a position to purchase high-end televisions at that time.

William Walsh: That is true but the Government did not have a requirement to reduce emissions relating to televisions. If we come back to this committee room in 2025, we hope to be speaking about internal combustion engines being expensive and electric vehicles being cheap because technology is driving the market that way. That is, of course, subject to what we are seeing at the moment with the supply chain issues in the world. We in the SEAI would be delighted if we could see retrofitting follow electric vehicles. Everyone is going to be driving an electric vehicle by 2030.

Matt Carthy: We know what is in place at the moment. There is a grant available for those people who can afford the tens of thousands necessary to buy a brand new electric vehicle. The Government is giving those people a grant.

Have our guests examined alternative ways of reaching the same objectives in a fairer way? Interest-free loans could be an example of that. Are there other measures that will allow those people who are crucified with carbon taxes and have no public transport options to avail of the sizeable level of Exchequer funding that is going into these schemes?

Such people cannot receive that funding at the moment.

William Walsh: We anticipate electric vehicles will become cheaper than internal combustion engines in the coming years. There will be options. Electric vehicles have overturned everything. Technology is available from particular brands, which I will not name because I do not want to promote them, and vehicles are getting cheaper. There has been a fall in prices for some types of electric vehicles in recent years. Brands have come into the market. We anticipate that trend continuing.

Matt Carthy: What about the State fleet, including Garda cars, council vehicles and the vehicles used by all statutory bodies? How close are we to moving to electric vehicles in that regard? Do our guests see that improving in the coming years? Do our guests see a role for their organisation in that respect?

Declan Meally: We do. We have been working with all of the public sector to look at the option of transferring the fleet to electric vehicles.

Matt Carthy: Does Mr. Meally know the current percentages involved?

Declan Meally: I do not have that figure to hand but we can find out. It is increasing all the time. The Garda was one of the first organisations to take that on. An Post is also looking to demonstrate how that transition can be done. Local authorities are taking electric vehicles on board. It is happening across the board. All public sector organisations are taking the information on board and working with us.

William Walsh: I understand there is an intention in the climate action plan to push and force State agencies and State bodies to only purchase electric vehicles where that is feasible and possible. We have been working with the Office of Government Procurement to ensure there are easy mechanisms in place for local authorities to access centrally procured vehicles.

ENDS

Conference on Irish Unity to take place in Monaghan

Conference on Irish Unity to take place in Monaghan

A conference, organised by a Sinn Féin TD but open to those of all political percussions will take place in Monaghan next week asking the important question: “Is it time to plan for a United Ireland?”

Cavan Monaghan Deputy, Matt Carthy, has organised the conference that will take place in the Garage Theatre on Saturday 9^th April, from 11am to 2pm. Deputy Carthy said this week that he had organised the conference in order to bring to the debate surrounding the prospects of Irish Unity to the central border community. He invited everyone with a view on the matter, regardless of what that view is, and those who are simply interested in the subject, to attend and participate in what will be a lively and interesting event.

The Sinn Féin leader, Marylou McDonald and Vice-president Michelle O’Neill will deliver addresses at the conference. But, the key component of the event will be a discussion hosted by Northern Sound political editor Ashling Kieran. Among the participants will be unionist commentator and former UUP press advisor, Alex Kane. He will discuss his own opposition to a United Ireland with Queen’s University Professor Colin Harvey and Irish News columnist Patricia MacBride.

Well known comedian and social media sensation, Tadgh Hickey from Cork, will also bring his unique perspective on Irish Unity to the conference.

Speaking this week, Matt Carthy welcomed members of the public to attend the conference and participate in the debate.

He said:

“The Good Friday Agreement sets out the peaceful democratic route to reunify our country.

“Those of us who want to see Irish unity need to convince others that it is in their best interests, that we will all be collectively better off in a united Ireland and that we will be able to reach higher to meet the challenges that face our country.

“That means we have to talk about it. We have to talk about all of the challenges that unity will bring, but also the benefits it will bring.

“It is my firm belief that a united Ireland makes economic sense, that we will be better off and that we will have the capacity to make all of the people of our country, North, South, east and west, better off. But we also hear from others who have a contrary position.

“This is the big, national conversation of our people.

“The conference in the Garage Theatre will be an opportunity for people in Monaghan and surrounding counties to be part of that conversation. I invite all to be part of this event”.

ENDS

€500 million EU Agri fund an important ‘first’ step

€500 million EU Agri fund an important ‘first’ step – Matt Carthy TD

Sinn Féin spokesperson on Agriculture, Food and the Marine, Matt Carthy TD, has welcomed indications from EU Agriculture Commissioner Janusz Wojciechowski that the Commission are set to deploy the €500 million crisis reserve, but warned that these funds must be delivered both rapidly and to those farmers most in need.

Carthy also cautioned that the release of this fund will mark just a first step, and that clarity as to medium-term plans of both the Irish government and European Commission are urgently needed.

He commented that the current challenges facing farmers in Ireland, in relation to both the prices and availability of inputs – while resulting from a confluence of factors – were being compounded by ‘a lack of policy coherence and resourcing.’

Teachta Carthy said:

“Sinn Féin have, for several weeks, sought the deployment of the EU €500 million crisis funding as an important first step to deliver immediate support to farmers who’ve been bearing the brunt of spiralling input costs for months.

“But farmers, as well as those in the broader agri-food supply chain who depend on them, urgently need clarity today as to what portion of the fund Ireland is set to receive and how it is to be delivered to those who need the support most.

“In recent weeks farmers organisations have made calls for €90 million in funding for the Irish pig sector alone – that gives some indication as to the scale of intervention required across the European Union, and what we can expect in terms of other countries laying a claim to the crisis funding.

“With that in mind, the response of the Minister for Agriculture has lacked urgency – there are actions that he could take that would go some ways towards to alleviating the crisis situation.

“The Minister needs to immediately return to the matter of excise on the agri-diesel, working with colleagues in government to deliver a sizable reduction – including in the carbon tax component. He should further ensure that a promised review as to the status of farm contractors with regard to the carbon tax be carried out as a matter of urgency.

“Minister McConalogue should also engage with his EU counterparts to secure reductions in anti-dumping tariffs on fertiliser and to ensure that the discussion on wider supports starts today.

“The Commission has show flexibility on the planting of fallow land in 2022. This is to be welcomed as we seek to maximise our own grain yield – but serious questions remain as to the potential impact this may have considering that planting season has already commenced.

“How is the Irish government going to ensure that adequate farm advisors and even seed is available? What plans are being put in place to marshal the necessary manpower to harvest, dry and store these crops in the months ahead?

“What is required is leadership and urgent action. The Minister for Agriculture must support our farming families to feed consumers over the coming seasons.

“At the outset of the invasion of Ukraine, Sinn Féin called on the European Commission to respond with a package for farmers’ negatively affected by sanctions on Russia – it is disappointing that weeks since then the response in both Dublin and Brussels remains un-pointed, without direction, and lacking entirely in detail.

“The European Commissioner has made clear that beyond the crisis reserve and planting of fallow land, they believe the response to these ongoing crises rests in state-aid.

“The Minister for Agriculture should be equally clear that the Common Agriculture Policy, undermined by a poor EU budget, has left both the European Union and member states in difficult position and potentially facing a food security emergency. As such, he must stress that the response must be European Union led and consist of funding mechanisms that deliver for farmers and consumers.

“Ireland is also uniquely placed in that we have access to €1 billion through the Brexit Adjustment Reserve which can be made readily available to farmers impact by the withdrawal of Britain from the EU.

“To-date, farmers have received not a single cent in such funding, despite €100 million being allocated to food processors.

“This week, I wrote to the Minister for Agriculture requesting the immediate deployment of this funding to support farming families across the pig, beef, seed potato and horticultural sectors.

“Funding and taxation mechanisms exist both at home and in Brussels that would significantly alleviate the burden being borne by farmers – the missing piece of this puzzle is a government willing to deliver for them.”

ENDS

“New Agri Authority must have the full powers of a Regulator”

“New Agri Authority must have the full powers of a Regulator” – Matt Carthy TD

Sinn Féin’s spokesperson on Agriculture Matt Carthy TD has said that farmers will be apprehensive that the new Unfair Trading Practices Authority may be a continuation of a minimalistic approach that fails to adequately regulate imbalances in the Food Supply Chain.

Deputy Carthy has called on the Minister for Agriculture, Charlie McConalogue, to publish the full powers and resources that will be available to the new authority. The Sinn Féin representative reaffirmed his view that there is a need for a robust regulator that has full power to investigate and penalise processors and retailers that seek to exploit farmers and consumers.

Teachta Carthy said:

“The approach by Minister McConalogue to the creation of an enforcement authority on Unfair Trading Practices has been minimalistic and slow. The timeline for the establishment of a Food Ombudsman has constantly shifted since Minister Charlie McConalogue took office.

“That long-standing commitment to establish a ‘Food Ombudsman’ was against a demand by farmers for a ‘Meat Regulator’. Now, the Minister proposes an “Office for Fairness and Transparency in the Agri Food Supply Chain”.

“The Minister must explain what the difference is; and more importantly he must detail what powers and resources will be available to the new body.

“The fact that the Unfair Trading Practices section established within the department last year has yet to conduct a single investigation shows that an authority in itself solves nothing.

“What is required, and what Sinn Féin will be demanding, is a Regulator with real teeth to investigate the cartel-like behaviour and the exploitation of farmers and consumers by processors and retailers and to impose severe penalties when required. The regulator must have the authority to examine the financial accounts of those operators and ensure that farmers receive a fair price for their products.

“Anything else will simply be a continuation of the minimalistic approach that has been the hallmark of Minister McConalogue’s record on this issue to date.”

ENDS