Pádraig Mac Lochlainn (Donegal North East, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We are sitting as a joint sub-committee on petitions. We will record the decisions of the committee. The committee has received a total of 136 petitions to date since the launch of the petitions system. Some 124 of those petitions have been brought before us on at least one occasion.

Today, we will discuss nine petitions. The first petition is No. P00018/14, in respect of Mr. James Dooney, regarding the lack of systems in place to allow a psychiatric nurse transfer to a suitable geographical area. I propose that this petition remain open and, following agreement with the petitioner, it will be brought before the joint committee for full consideration at a later date. This petition, as currently worded, relates to an individual and is an issue of importance. If the petition is changed to reflect a broader issue, then our committee will revisit the matter. Is that agreed? Agreed.

The second petition is No. P00027/14, in respect of Mr. Alan Moran, regarding the holding of an abortion referendum. The committee has agreed that we will get advice and that it is inadmissible. The committee has agreed that we will get advice from the parliamentary legal adviser and refer the matter back to the committee at a later stage. Is that agreed? Agreed.

The next petition is No. P00028/14, in respect of Ms Elizabeth Shannon, which calls for the resignation of two judges. The recommendation from the committee is that all correspondence be returned to the petitioner, in accordance with section 92(4) of the inquiries Act. Is that agreed? Agreed. The petition is closed and is inadmissible.

The next petition is No. P00033/14, in respect of Mr. Michael Power, regarding discrimination in the primary medical certificate. This petition is deemed to be inadmissible because it has been dealt with by an ombudsman. However, the issue raised by Mr. Power is being addressed in two other petitions. We will keep Mr. Power briefed even though we cannot accept his petition because it is inadmissible. We will keep him briefed on the progress of the other two petitions out of courtesy. Is that agreed? Agreed.

The next petition is No. P00035/14, in respect of Dr. Franka Winter, which is entitled, "Married person tax credit not for migrants". The petition is deemed inadmissible because the petitioner has not demonstrated that she has exercised all of the avenues of appeal. However, we understand that the issues raised have since been addressed. That is a good outcome for the petitioner in this regard. Is it agreed that the petition is inadmissible although there has been a good outcome? Agreed.

The next petition is No. P00036/14, in respect of Ms Noreen Corcoran, re health care v. water charges. The petition is inadmissible as the issues raised are inadmissible under Standing Order 165C(2) which states:

In relation to admissible petitions, where a petition deals with-(a) local or regional matters; or

(b) matters which are more appropriate to a regulatory public body or a body established for the purpose of redress;the Committee shall establish that all available avenues of appeal or redress have been utilised by the petitioner prior to the Committee considering the matter.

Is it agreed that the petition is inadmissible because of those terms? Agreed.

The next petition is No. P00042/14, in respect of Mr. Daniel Pena, which is entitled "Sasamón, new bridge between Ireland and Spain." Sasamón is a location in Spain and the term "new bridge" refers to a new cultural bridge between Ireland and Spain. We could not deem the petition admissible because it does not deal with matters that are pertinent to the Houses or specific to this committee that would come under the remit of the committee or these Houses. However, we did think what he had to say had merit. Therefore, we will refer these matters and will write to the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government, the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade and the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport. We will bring the suggestions mentioned in the petition to their attention and we will ask them to respond to the petitioner. Although this committee cannot deal with the petition, we hope the petitioner will appreciate our efforts. Is that agreed? Agreed.

The next petition is No. P00001/15. It is considered frivolous, vexatious or otherwise constitutes an abuse of the petitions system as the telephone number and e-mail address do not exist. I wish to state that it is disappointing that anyone would submit such a petition and engage in such nonsense. This is an important system for citizens and many citizens engage in it, give of their time and make an effort, plus this is a new committee in this Oireachtas. The petition has been ruled out. Is that agreed? Agreed.

The next petition is No. P00005/15, in respect of Mr. Thomas Keary, and is entitled "Unpaid salary for night duty worked". We have looked at the Standing Orders. We think this person has raised the issues with the Labour Court and the Rights Commissioner which means the matter has been through the due process. Our Standing Orders do not allow us to revisit issues that have been addressed by the Ombudsman, the Courts Service, the Labour Court or the systems that are in place. We will advise the petitioner to look at trade unions and whether there are new legislative or policy areas that could be examined. We have to deem the petition inadmissible. Is that agreed? Agreed.