Pádraig Mac Lochlainn (Donegal North East, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

We are in public session. We have had the opportunity to discuss and deliberate on a number of the petitions. We will now relay the decisions our committee has made in regard to them. The first petition is No. 00023/13 from Mr. Frank Mulcahy, former head of ISME, regarding the alleged reneging by the Department of Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation on an agreement made with Deputy Ruairí Quinn in 2004. The Department agreed, following an internal investigation, that if its files showed that the allegation re EU grants levelled at Frank Mulcahy never had merit, it would publish that evidence. This has not been done. What we have agreed today is to defer that particular petition for more consideration at a later date.

The next petition is No. 00028/13 from Mr. Ron Horgan claiming that his medical records were accessed without his permission or a court order. The petition appears to fall foul of Standing Order 165C(1)(d) and (e) in so far as it names individuals, contains language which is in the nature of being defamatory and is, therefore, inadmissible. The subject of the petition also appears to relate to an individual case that may already have been adjudicated on by the courts and, therefore, is also outside the remit of the committee. It is proposed to deem the petition to be inadmissible. Is that agreed? Agreed. It is also proposed to return all correspondence to the petitioner to avoid any scenario in the future where the petitioner may seek to claim privilege over said documents. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Petition No. 00030/13 from Mr. Desmond Lafferty is entitled "Requiring consistency in public office". The petitioner states that he is asking that Government Departments be required to develop an explicit set of rules for dealing with complaints to avoid vacillation and inconsistency, and that the handling of his case by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade be reviewed. He is also asking the committee to examine and evaluate his dealings with the Office of the Ombudsman and to recommend that appeals, including his against the Ombudsman's findings, be handled by a body separate from the Office of the Ombudsman. This is the second time the petitioner has submitted a petition.

Elements of this petition have already been considered and addressed in a previous petition submitted by the petitioner. It is proposed, therefore, that the petitions be deemed as inadmissible pursuant to Standing Order 165C(1)(f), which states that a petition is inadmissible if it "is the same as, or in substantially similar terms to, a petition brought by or on behalf of the same person, body corporate or unincorporated association during the lifetime of that Dáil and which was closed by agreement of the Committee". The petition was refused initially because we do not second-guess the decisions of the Ombudsman.

We are not permitted to do so because it is not within our Standing Orders. The committee notes that there is already an established appeals procedure within the Office of the Ombudsman. It is therefore proposed to inform the petitioner that the committee has found no grounds at this time to question the procedures followed by the Ombudsman's office. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Petition No. 00075/12 is from Ms Melissa Halpin. The petitioner had sought the revocation of a foreshore licence granted to Providence Resources to drill in Dublin Bay and a public inquiry into the granting of the licence by the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government on the basis that the public consultation process was inadequate. During the course of its deliberations, the committee noted that Providence Resources plc had voluntarily surrendered the foreshore licence. Therefore, the issue was deemed to be resolved.

However, the committee agreed to ask the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government to inform it of any proposed changes to the relevant regulations. The committee has been monitoring progress in this regard. It was noted that during the pre-legislative scrutiny of the general scheme of the maritime area and foreshore (amendment) Bill 2013, the Department emphasised that one of the main aims of the Bill is to transfer development-consenting responsibility for projects from the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government to An Bord Pleanála and local authorities. Once that transfer has been effected, the public participation provisions of the Planning and Development Acts will be utilised under the new consenting regime. Do members wish to comment on this petition?