Committee on Public Petitions debate -
Wednesday, 7 Feb 2018

Decisions on Public Petitions Received

Chairman

The first petition for consideration is Petition No. P00041/17 on the reinstatement of the early childhood care and education, ECCE, scheme overage exemption for children with special needs. It is proposed to forward a copy of the response from the Department of Children and Youth Affairs to the petitioner and close the petition. Is that agreed? Agreed.

The next petition for consideration is Petition No. P0003/18, which proposes, to use the words of the petitioner, "to bring Irish hospitals up to an acceptable European standard". The decision of the committee is to deem the petition inadmissible and close the petition under Standing Order 111C(2)(a). Is that agreed? Agreed.

The next petition for consideration is Petition No. P00044/17 on ending the Irish arms trade with Israel. The reply from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade addresses the issues raised by the petitioner. It states that Ireland does not have an arms industry and is not an exporter of weapons to any country. The purchase of arms, it continues, is subject to a tendering process, the principal criterion being the best equipment that can be obtained for the protection and operational effectiveness of Irish troops. In that regard, it is proposed to forward a copy of the response from the Department to the petitioner and close the petition. Is that agreed?

Deputy Denise Mitchell

I support the petition. The fact that 23,000 people signed it demonstrates considerable public concern about this issue. Deputies from all political parties and none have also raised the issue on the floor of the House. The fact that the Israeli arms industry may tender for contracts in the European Union does not mean we should accept such tenders. As a small state, Ireland can take a principled stance on issues such as this and send a clear message that we will not be involved in the arms trade with Israel while it illegally occupies Palestine. I register my support for the petition.

Senator Jerry Buttimer

This is a very important petition. It is also important that we reaffirm that Ireland does not have an arms industry. We must not tie the hands of the Department of Defence. Notwithstanding the position taken by Deputy Mitchell, the issue is one of ensuring that the State procures and provides the best available equipment for our troops to give them operational effectiveness. We have a process in place for doing business, as the Secretary General of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade noted. The committee should, therefore, support the proposal made by the Chairman. We should allow the Government to interact with whatever State it wishes to interact with. It is important also to reaffirm that we do not have an arms industry.

Deputy Martin Heydon

I agree with my colleague, Senator Buttimer. If the committee were to accept the petition, it would somehow suggest that Ireland has an arms industry, which is not the case. I am acutely aware of the importance of ensuring that the best equipment is available to our troops on peacekeeping duties in order to keep them safe and allow them to perform those duties. Such equipment is not used in an aggressive manner but for peacekeeping purposes and self-protection. On that basis, I agree with the Chairman's proposal.

Chairman

The proposal is to forward a copy of the response from the Department to the petitioner. In doing so, the committee recognises and respects the petition. Is that agreed? Agreed.

The final petition for consideration has been the subject of some public discourse in the past 48 hours. Petition No. P00026/17 from Ms Aideen Darmody seeks the removal of the statue of Prince Albert from the grounds of Leinster House on the basis that it pays tribute to a monarch whose values are in opposition to those of the Irish Republic. The petitioner suggests that the statue be auctioned and the proceeds donated to a homeless charity.

We have received correspondence from the Superintendent of the Houses of the Oireachtas stating that the Houses do not own the statue of Prince Albert and that information on its ownership can be supplied by the Office of Public Works art management unit. The physical implications and potential cost of removing the statue would also be best answered by the OPW. The statue dates back to the Royal Dublin Society's ownership of Leinster House. It is worth noting that the sculpture was done by John H. Foley, who was a renowned sculptor.

The proposal before us is to deem the petition inadmissible under Standing Order 111C(1)(a) because it is asking the Dáil to do something that it does not have the power to do. When we discussed this in private session, the view was that the committee does not wish to have the statue removed, that it should remain but that it would be pertinent to seek clarification from the OPW or the powers that be as to who owns the statue. However, I wish to have a discussion and will seek members' views.

Deputy Martin Heydon

I agree with the recommendation. Obviously, the petition is inadmissible because it is not within our remit to deal with it. However, it is right to seek clarification from the OPW on the matter. The Chairman mentioned John H. Foley, who was a renowned Irish sculptor. His other famous works include the statue of Daniel O'Connell on O'Connell Street and that of Edmund Burke outside Trinity College. The statue of Prince Albert has been on the Merrion Square side of Leinster House since 1923. That gives the historical context. Whatever the political dimensions at that time, it is now part of the folklore of this House and of the history that has made the country what it is today. Rather than try to knock such emblems and pretend the history did not happen, we should recognise that it is part of our past.

Deputy Denise Mitchell

It is an interesting petition. Not being disrespectful to anybody or the statue, I did not even know where it was located. I walked down and looked at it. It is hidden in the corner of the car park and there is hedge growing up on its sides. It is not visible to the public passing by. The text of the petition is slightly tongue-in-cheek. I want to see a united Ireland and part of that will involve agreements on decisive issues such as symbols and emblems. We have to take a position on the recommendation before us. There is no harm in finding out who owns the statue and, obviously, we must have respectful debates on these issues in the future.

Senator Jerry Buttimer

The Chairman and Senator Leyden referred to John H. Foley. It is fitting that we will commemorate the 200th anniversary of his birth in May. Like Deputy Mitchell, I agree with the Chairman's recommendation and I believe we should find out who owns the statue. The statue was moved to facilitate the creation of the obelisk commemorating Collins, Griffith and O'Higgins which, quite rightly, has a place of pre-eminence in the primary location. The petition is inadmissible but, in conjunction with the OPW and the Houses of the Oireachtas, could we consider perhaps relocating the statue? From my historical research, and I thank Senator Norris in this regard, Prince Albert was a progressive social reformer. Like Deputy Mitchell, I am a proud republican nationalist but Prince Albert strongly opposed slavery and child labour. He wanted to increase the working age. He was present at the Great Industrial Exhibition of 1853 in the grounds of Leinster House, which was owned by the RDS at the time. While some people might think the debate we are having is frivolous, it is appropriate on the 200th anniversary of the birth of John H. Foley to consider where we could put the statue. I accept that some might find memorials to the past difficult to understand and to appreciate, but we cannot ignore our past. We should embrace it and move forward. I support the Chairman. We have given the petition a very fair hearing and I commend the Chairman on allowing that to happen. Equally, perhaps as a side issue and bearing in mind what Deputy Mitchell said, we could look at how we could relocate the statute as part of the refurbishment of the House. Deputy Mitchell is right that it is not visible from the gate on Merrion Square so perhaps we should consider relocating it as well.

Deputy Eugene Murphy

There has been much talk about this in the public arena in the past 48 hours. I thank Senator Norris for sending us a very informative email. Mr. Foley obviously was quite an interesting character and did some amazing sculpture. With regard to Prince Albert, the statue is there and is part of history. When one reads about him, one finds he was a man who took a strong stand on certain issues. I agree with the recommendation and with what the other members said.

Chairman

I thank the members for sharing their views. It is the view of the committee that the statue should remain. From a technical point of view the petition is deemed inadmissible because it is asking us to do something we do not have the power to do. However, it is an interesting one. Deputy Mitchell is right. Sometimes there is an eclectic range of petitions before us and we are respectful to the petitioners but there is a clear view in this case that, as the emeritus professor of history at University College Cork, John A. Murphy, said when quoting from George Santayana, a philosopher poet, a civilised people does not tear out the pages of history, it simply turns them over. We acknowledge the presence of the statue and that it is symbolic. However, the artistic merit attributed to the statue given that it is the work of John H. Foley probably supersedes the statue's subject. We are clear on our position and I thank the petitioner for-----

Senator Jerry Buttimer

I am not making a formal proposal but, in the context of the refurbishment works being carried out in respect of Leinster House, perhaps we could liaise with the OPW, the Superintendent and others to consider how the statute might be relocated. I accept that it is not in our remit.

Chairman

To be helpful, perhaps we should establish the ownership in the first instance.

Senator Jerry Buttimer

That is fair enough.

Chairman

We have agreed to correspond with the OPW on that. Perhaps we can discuss it when a response is received.

Deputy Denise Mitchell

To add to Senator Buttimer's comment, I believe it should be in a better location so that it can be accessible to the public. Perhaps we could conduct a consultation in respect of the matter.

Chairman

To respond to Deputy Mitchell's earlier point, I have been going through that gate for ten years. One passes the statue by and does not take much notice of it, to be honest. Like the Deputy, I had to go out the other day to take a look at it to see who it was and so forth. It took me a while to find it. It is quite an imposing structure but it is hidden by the hedge. I would not necessarily opt for relocating it.

If, however, some treatment can be done in or around the location of the statue by the OPW or the internal management of the Houses, that might be the way to proceed. I thank the members for their agreement on this issue and I again thank the petitioner. A decision has been made. Is that agreed? Agreed.

As there is no further business, the meeting is adjourned until 1.30 p.m. on Wednesday, 21 February 2017.

Senator Jerry Buttimer

I will be away on Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe, OSCE, business that day.

The committee adjourned at 2.10 p.m. until 1.30 p.m. on Wednesday, 21 February 2018.