Seán Sherlock (Cork East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We are now in public session to discuss decisions of the Committee on Public Petitions.

The first petition for consideration is Petition No. P00021/16 from Mr. Michael Callanan entitled, “Investigate circumstances relating to flawed implementation of fishing Legislation”. The petitioner is claiming that correspondence forwarded on behalf of the Chairman contained serious inaccuracies, which conflicted with that given by individual members of the previous committee when contacted by the petitioner; that the value for money review of the decommissioning schemes 2005 and 2008 fully vindicates his claims in relation to the administration of the scheme; that the information relating to the two test cases are readily available; and that it would take an impartial independent individual less than two hours to adjudicate on the matter.

It is proposed to inform the petitioner that the committee is satisfied with the response from the Department with regard to all aspects of the issues raised in his petition, except the decision in relation to one of the cases provided. Therefore, it will correspond with the Department requesting that it confirm that all 490 successful applicants fully met with the following qualifying criteria: demonstrated a track record in commercial sea fishing by means of pots in the Irish inshore; and were not in full-time employment outside of the fishing industry. Is that agreed? Agreed.

The next petition for consideration is Petition No. P00022/16 entitled, “Ireland should join the Antarctic Treaty”. The petitioner is asking the Irish Government to sign the Antarctic Treaty to demonstrate that Ireland is committed to preserving the Continent of Antarctica. There are 303 signatures supporting the petition. The Department in its response stated that there is no compelling reason, either strategic or economic, for Ireland to ratify the treaty; that ratification would require a number of Departments to prepare legislation for the Oireachtas and would place considerable strain on Department resources; that Ireland is proud of our positive legacy in the Antarctic; and that Ireland is deeply committed to combatting global warming and climate change through ensuring a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. Therefore, it is proposed to forward a copy of the response received from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade to the petitioner and close the petition. Is that agreed? Agreed.

The next petition for consideration is No. P00023/16 in the name of Mr. Norman Wilson, entitled "Acknowledgment of, and response to, correspondence by Government Ministers". The petitioner is requesting that all correspondence by e-mail to Ministers, Departments and An Garda Síochána be acknowledged within 24 hours of receipt and comprehensively responded to within one calendar month. The reform delivery office in the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform is responsible for the quality customer service initiative, as part of which all Departments, Government offices and other public bodies are required to publish charters covering a three-year period, based around a four-step cycle involving consultation, commitment, evaluation and reporting. In adhering to the requirements of this initiative, the Department of Justice and Equality published its 2016-18 customer service charter in 2016. This charter outlines the aims of the Department in improving customer service, for example by setting out response times to written and e-mail communications. It is proposed to forward a copy of the response from the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform to the petitioner and to refer the petition to the Department of Justice and Equality for response. Is that agreed?

Colette Kelleher (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Perhaps the targets in the 2016 customer service charter of the Department of Justice and Equality could be looked at. It seems to me that a commitment to acknowledge all correspondence within five working days is achievable without adding a caveat like "where it is feasible to do so". We would be looking for such a prompt response from the Department.

Seán Sherlock (Cork East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Okay. Is the proposal in respect of No. P00023/16 agreed? Agreed.

The next petition for consideration is No. P00025/16 in the name of Mr. Robert Carty, entitled "Creating a Tobacco Free Generation". The petitioner would like to see a tobacco-free Ireland and would like the Government to discuss introducing legislation similar to a Private Members' Bill that has been introduced in Tasmania, which proposes to prohibit the sale of tobacco products to anyone born after 1 January 2000. Following consideration by the Tasmanian Legislative Council, it has been determined the Bill could lead to limitations on the fundamental rights of citizens. The Department of Health has an action plan for a tobacco-free Ireland and is continually making progress in this area. The Minister, Deputy Harris, and the Minister of State, Deputy Corcoran Kennedy, have expressed their gratitude to the petitioner for submitting a petition on this issue. It is proposed to forward a copy of the response that has been received from the Department of Health to the petitioner and to close the petition. Is that agreed? Agreed.

The next petition for consideration is No. P00005/17 in the name of Ms Christine Cullen, entitled "Make Co-operation with Trump Administration Conditional on Human Rights". The petitioner proposes that the Government should make the same statement as the Chancellor of Germany on co-operation with the Administration of the United States of America. This petition is calling for a statement to be made by the Government. While this request is not a matter of public concern in relation to legislative powers, it could be deemed to be a matter of public policy under Standing Order 111B. For the purposes of clarification and to ensure the petitioner gets a fair hearing, it is intended to refer the petition to the Department of the Taoiseach for response. I remind the committee that Standing Order 111B(1) provides that "a petition may be addressed to the Houses of the Oireachtas on a matter of general public concern or interest in relation to their legislative powers or an issue of public policy". Arguably, the question of whether this petition is a matter of public policy remains open. In order to allow the petitioner a fair hearing, it is recommended that we refer the matter to the Department of the Taoiseach.

Colette Kelleher (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I fully endorse the proposal to take forward this petition by sending it to the Department of the Taoiseach. It could be argued strongly that making co-operation with President Trump's Administration conditional on human rights is very much a matter of public policy. I think many people in Ireland and elsewhere would agree with that view. I agree with the recommendation to send this petition on to the Department of the Taoiseach.

Brendan Ryan (Dublin Fingal, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I agree with Senator Kelleher. The views of the petitioner in this case are quite reflective of public opinion on this issue. Therefore, I think passing on the petition to the Department of the Taoiseach is the right thing to do.

Seán Sherlock (Cork East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The key point is that as parliamentarians, we would join the Government in pointing out that Ireland has signed various human rights declarations and treaties and a whole corpus of human rights law. As the members have concluded, the best course of action is to refer this petition to the Department of the Taoiseach. Is that agreed?

Colette Kelleher (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Agreed.

Brendan Ryan (Dublin Fingal, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Agreed.

Seán Sherlock (Cork East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Agreed.

The next petition for consideration is No. P00006/17 in the name of Ms Grace Holmes entitled "Stop the Taoiseach attending St. Patrick's Day event with Donald Trump". The petitioner objects to the Taoiseach attending a St. Patrick's Day event with the President of the USA. The petitioner feels that Ireland should take a stand against some of the President's policies, for example banning refugees and people from specific countries from entering into the USA. This request is neither a matter of public concern in relation to legislative powers per senor a matter of public policy. Therefore, is not admissible under Standing Order 111B(1) or Standing Order 111C(1)(a). It also requests Dáil Éireann to manage the diary of the Taoiseach of the day when he or she receives an invitation to attend an event somewhere, which is something it does not have the power to do under Standing Order 111C(1)(b). It is proposed to deem the petition inadmissible under Standing Orders 111B(1) and 111C(1). Is that agreed? Agreed.

As there is no further business, the committee stands adjourned until Wednesday, 8 March 2017, when we will meet officials from the Citizens Information Board. I thank the members of the committee for their attendance today.