Committee on Public Petitions debate -
Wednesday, 17 May 2017

Decisions on Public Petitions Received

Vice Chairman

The next item is decisions of the Joint Committee on Public Petitions. Before we begin, I wish to read into the record that at our meeting of 3 May 2017, during our deliberations in public session on petition No. P00034/16 from Mr. Joseph O'Shea entitled, Lack of Appeals Opportunity for Pension Assessment, one of the recommendations read into the record was to ask the Department of Justice and Equality to correspond with the petitioner, outlining the policy element of the petition. However, the recommendation should have stated that the Department correspond with the committee. Is that agreed? Agreed.

The first petition for consideration is petition No. P00023/16 from Mr. Norman Wilson, entitled, Acknowledgement of, and response to, correspondence by Government Ministers. We agree to the recommendation and to forward a copy of the responses from the Department of Justice and Equality and An Garda Síochána to the petitioner and close the petition. Is that agreed? Agreed.

The next petition for consideration is petition No. P00003/17 from Mr. Brian Houlihan, entitled, Public consultation on the feasibility of developing a hemp industry. It is agreed that we correspond with the Department and request a timeline for its examination of the issue of growing hemp commercially in Ireland as soon as it is available, that we request that the committee be updated on any progress and that we forward a copy of the response from the Department to the petitioner. The petition will remain open and the secretariat will request an update from the Department within three months. We also have the additional suggestion from Deputy Mitchell that we seek input from the Department of Health, An Garda Síochána and other relevant stakeholders on the matter. Is that agreed? Agreed.

The next petition for consideration is petition No. P00009/17 from Mr. Daniel Hutson, entitled, Assigning mandatory community service to people claiming job seeker's allowance at minimum wage rate or greater. It is proposed to forward a copy of the response from the Department to the petitioner and to close the petition. Is that agreed? Agreed.

The next petition for consideration is petition No. P00011/17, from Ms Pauline Bleach, entitled, To re-route the Leinster Orbital north of Navan away from the Tara and Brú Na Bóinne archaeological landscapes and to create a legally binding mechanism to allow early intervention in the case of large infrastructure affecting areas of national importance. The committee has considered the response from the Department of Transport, Sport and Tourism in relation to its position and it is proposed to forward a copy of the response from the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport to the petitioner and to close the petition.

Deputy Shane Cassells

I would like to comment on the Leinster orbital route. We need early action and to see the route finalised, as urged by the National Transport Authority. It is regrettable that capital funding has not been provided for the provision of this route, which will be a key piece of infrastructure around many towns and counties. The fact no funding has been provided in the plan up to 2035 is most regrettable. I will seek that this key piece of infrastructure is progressed. The petition mentions the Hill of Tara and Brú na Bóinne. One could not build a wendy house in Brú na Bóinne, such are the stringent planing guidelines, and I should know, having worked on many Meath county development plans. The protections that are in place for Brú na Bóinne are extensive, and rightly so.

The protection of lives is equally important. The Slane bypass is still mired in controversy and there has been lack of funding and of planning decisions. Many people have been killed on that deadly bridge and yet we are not able to provide that crucial infrastructure. Infrastructure, such as the Leinster orbital route, is critical. It is misleading to mention places like Brú na Bóinne and the Hill of Tara in this context. I know the Hill of Tara very well because I live only a few miles away. I spend most weekends on the Hill of Tara with my children, and spent most weekends there as a child. It is an intrinsic part of the lives of Meath people and I am privileged to live beside it. When I stand on the Mound of the Hostages most weekends with my kids and I look across the Tara valley, one can barely see the M3, such was the manner in which it was constructed, and yet that road was mired in planning controversy for over ten years by people who would not know how to find the Hill of Tara. Pat Kenny broadcast a radio show from the Hill of Tara while the road was being built three and a half miles away, giving people the impression that this infrastructure was going through the hill. It is wrong to paint a picture that national monuments are somehow in danger, it is misleading and it needs to be tackled.

This references the fact that, archaeologically, the M3 cost taxpayers €740 million more than the contractors were paid to build it. This was because of misinformation. When it comes to the Hill of Tara, more archaeological finds were actually discovered because of the work in the surrounding area. These are now preserved in our National Museum because of the sensitive manner in which the work was handled. We need to see action on the Leinster orbital route so that towns such as Drogheda, Navan and Naas can realise their full potential, create the counterbalance that is needed to this congested city and allow our regional towns to grow in a sustainable manner. I want to see this project happen sooner rather than later.

Vice Chairman

Thank you, Deputy. Your strong views on this matter on behalf of your constituents are duly noted. Is the recommendation of the committee to close this petition agreed? Agreed.

The next petition for consideration is petition No. P00020/17 from Mr. Conor O’Riordan, entitled, Complaint against the Ombudsman. It is proposed to forward a copy of the response from the Office of the Ombudsman to the petitioner and close the petition and to correspond with the Office of the Ombudsman to confirm that the committee is in agreement on the fact that details of the individual complainant are not relevant to the consideration of the petition. Is this agreed? Agreed.

Deputy Eugene Murphy

When we close off a petition, has the individual a right to come back again with virtually the same case?

Vice Chairman

No.

Deputy Eugene Murphy

Thank you.

Vice Chairman

I thank all members for the strong engagement today.

The joint committee adjourned at 2.25 p.m. until 1.30 p.m. on Wednesday, 31 May 2017.