Joint Committee on Public Petitions and the Ombudsmen debate -
Thursday, 3 Oct 2024

Decisions on Public Petitions Received

An Cathaoirleach

We will now consider the public petitions. I propose that first, the petitions considered by the committee at this meeting and previous meetings may be published and that, second, the replies from the Departments and other bodies may also be published. Is that agreed? Agreed.

We have five petitions for consideration today and they are as follows: the first one is No. P00041/24, "Travel grievance for short stay and tourism purpose within CTA for residents" from Mr. Nagesh Siddegowda. It states:

UK and ROI government to establish legislation to allow residents of UK and ROI travel within CTA for short stay and tourism purpose without the need for a visa from each other. The population of Non-British / Irish / EU citizens in the UK and ROI is over 3% of the total population.

The action requested by this petitioner is that the petition seeks to include residents of the UK and the Republic of Ireland to travel within the CTA for purpose of short stay or tourism and foster tourism as proposed under the British Irish visa scheme, BIVS, for regular tourists. The secretariat took action on 8 May 2024. It wrote to the Department of Justice seeking a response advising of its views within 14 days. On 20 June 2024, the secretariat forwarded the response to the petitioner, which was received from the Department of Justice. for comment within 14 days. On 4 July 2024, the secretariat received a response from the petitioner and there is a summary note on the response. The recommendation is that the correspondence from the petitioner be forwarded to the Department of Justice for comment within 14 days. Is that agreed? Agreed.

The next petition is No. P00051/24, "Oppose the May 2024 Pandemic Agreement Between Ireland and WHO", from Ms Sandra James. This petition seeks to rally a position against the impending pandemic agreement, scheduled for signing in May 2024 between the Republic of Ireland and the World Health Organization. The petitioner states the issue represented by the upcoming WHO pandemic agreement was recently raised in front of the Minister for Health. Deputy Peadar Tóibín asked "if the WHO pandemic preparedness treaty draft includes any loss of sovereignty to the Irish people" and "if it is this Government's intention to sign the WHO preparedness treaty." The answer given was: "In relation to the Deputy's question as to whether the Government intends to be a signatory to the WHO Pandemic Agreement, as the negotiation of the proposed instrument is still underway, it is not currently possible to determine the precise legal ramifications of this instrument or what form the final instrument shall take. These negotiations were due to conclude in May 2024."

The petitioner asked to urge our fellow citizens and policymakers alike to critically evaluate this agreement before it is signed. The petitioner stated: "We must ensure that any international agreement respects our national interests while effectively addressing global health challenges. The details of this agreement have not been adequately disclosed to the public, raising concerns about transparency and accountability. It is crucial to consider that such agreements can have far-reaching implications on national sovereignty and public health policy."

On action taken to resolve this issue before submitting the petition, as this is a national issue, even an international issue, and nothing could be done on an individual basis. The action taken by the secretariat was on 24 June 2024. The secretariat wrote to the Department of Health seeking a response advising of its views within 14 days. On 27 June 2024, the secretariat received a response from the Department of Health. The recommendation is that we publish the response of the Department of Health and that correspondence from the Department of Health be forwarded to the petitioner for comment within 14 days. Do members have any views or is that agreed?

Deputy Pat Buckley

That is agreed, Chair. It will be interesting to see what comes back.

An Cathaoirleach

Agreed.

Petition No. P00052/24, "Social Welfare Entitlements for Clergy’ from Mr. Matthew Farrell. The petitioner worked as a Roman Catholic priest from 1970 to 1987 and no social welfare stamps were paid for him. He is unable now to claim full pension entitlements and requests that his entitlements be backdated. Actions taken by him to resolve this issue before submitting the petition were appealing to the appeals section of Scope and to the human rights Jervis Street appeals office and contacting the Ombudsman's office and the Department of Social Protection.

Action taken by the secretariat was on 24 June 2024. The secretariat wrote to the Department of Social Protection seeking a response advising of its views within 14 days. On 9 July 2024, the secretariat received a response from the Department of Social Protection. The recommendation is that the correspondence from the Department of Social Protection be forward to the petitioner for comment within 14 days. Do members have any views or is that agreed? Agreed.

The next petition is No. P00057/24, "Flawed Legislation relating to New Pensions and Social Security" from Mr. Frank Moran. To ensure the entitlement of same-sex couples to benefit from an occupational pension scheme changes were made to Part VIIA of the Pensions Act 1990, as inserted by Part 3, section 27 of the Social Welfare, Pensions and Civil Registrations Act 2018 and section 81L(1)(ii). Changes to the law were adopted for members of the Civil Service and circulated in the Department of public expenditure and reform circular 18/2020. The title of the circular is "Recognition of same sex marriages/civil partnerships under Public Service 'Original' Spouses and Children's Contributory Pension Schemes". Appendix II of Circular 18/2020 provides an information note on Part VIIA of the Pensions Act 1990 as inserted by Part 3, section 27 of the Social Welfare, Pensions and Civil Registrations Act 2018.

The action requested by the petitioner is that the relevant section is fatally flawed, discriminatory, unreasonable, unconstitutional and is offensive to its original equality intent. Action taken to resolve this issue before submitting the petition was on 24 September 2023. The petitioner applied to be reinstated in the original spouses and children's contributory pension scheme as provided for in circular 18/2020 with a response stating that the application had been refused because the civil partnership had not taken place before 1 January 2014, as required by section 81L(1)(ii) of the Act. On 24 September 2023, the petitioner also applied to rejoin the original spouses and children's contributory pension scheme with his former employer, the Central Bank of Ireland.

Action taken by the secretariat was on 2 July 2024. The secretariat wrote to the Department of Social Protection seeking a response advising of its views within 14 days.

On 15 July 2024, the secretariat received a response from the Department of Social Protection. On 29 September 2024, the secretariat forwarded the response to the petitioner for comment within 14 days. The recommendation is that the correspondence from the Department of Social Protection be forwarded to the petitioner for comment within 14 days. This correspondence was forwarded and we are waiting for a response. After the private session, we also recommend that we write to the Minister, asking him to remove the one line related to the 36 months. We will also contact the Library and Research Service and see what way we can forward this on behalf of the petitioner. We also spoke about another couple people we need to talk to who would be well tuned into what is going on. Hopefully, we can get a resolution, as has been requested by us, before the end of this Dáil term. I assure the petitioner that the staff we have work very hard on our behalf. If it is possible, they will do it for us. Do any members have any views? Is that agreed?

Deputy Pat Buckley

It is absolutely agreed.

An Cathaoirleach

The next petition is No. P00060/24, “Voting for Irish Born Citizens Abroad”, from Ms Gráinne McLoughlin, and is regarding allowing Irish-born citizens their right to vote as stated in the 9th amendment of the Constitution. The voting rights in Ireland are rigid in comparison with other EU member states. The petitioner states that 36 European countries in 2006 allowed their emigrants overseas to vote. Postal ballots have been suggested, but in the current digital environment, she is sure voting can take place by digital means. Failing this, voting could place in person in consulates and embassies.

There is increasing globalisation worldwide and it is disenfranchising of Ireland not to allow their citizens voting rights abroad. Half of those emigrating are in the age group of 25 to 44 and a huge number of Ireland’s young voices are not being heard in elections. Irish emigrants are not losing touch with Ireland because of vast improvements in technology such as the Internet. Those who intend to return have a right to continue to have a say in how their country is run.

The accelerating trend globally is towards allowing overseas citizens a vote in all elections. Ireland has the most restrictive voting rights in the world in respect of overseas voting. Inclusivity means all voices should be heard, including Irish citizens living abroad.

The action requested by petitioner is to allow Irish-born citizens their right to vote as stated in the 9th amendment of the Constitution. No actions were taken before submitting this petition. The actions taken by the secretariat are as follows. On 24 July 2024, the secretariat wrote to the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage seeking a response advising of their views within 14 days. On 2 August 2024, the secretariat received a response from the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage. The recommendations are: that the correspondence from the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage be forwarded to the petitioner for comment within 14 days; to publish the correspondence from the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage; and to invite the petitioner to appear before the committee at the meeting on Thursday, 17 October. Do members have any views?

I think it is absolutely crazy that we are the only country that does not seem to trust themselves to let our diaspora scattered all around the world for different reasons be able to vote like every other country. It is a crazy system. If my wife and I leave the country, and I go on business and she comes, I can vote using a postal vote but she will not be able to vote. It is unbelievable that, in this day and age, we do not have a system. We have embassies all over the world. Why can we not do it like every other country?

Deputy Pat Buckley

Absolutely. It is funny enough that the Tánaiste was asked, I think, last week about it. He mentioned that it could be a logistical thing. Mother of God, that is a weak excuse. There are people from Australia here. If there is an election in Australia and an Australian is here on holidays, that person goes to the consulate and votes. It is as simple as that. I know it was looked at for presidential voting. It will be interesting to listen to the petitioner when she comes in and see what angle it is going. People died for the right to vote all over the world. If we want a proper democracy, the right to vote and make choices is the number one pillar in a democratic world.

An Cathaoirleach

We see it on television. When there are elections in every other country, people go to their embassies in Ireland and cast their vote.

Deputy Pat Buckley

It is not rocket science. We all have IDs.

An Cathaoirleach

It does not seem to be rocket science. That is agreed. That concludes our consideration of public petitions this afternoon. I invite members of the public to submit petitions via our online portal, which is available at petitions.oireachtas.ie. A petition may be addressed to the Houses of the Oireachtas on a matter of general public concern or interest or an issue of public policy.

Next on the agenda is any other business. Do members have any issues they wish to raise?

Deputy Pat Buckley

No. I thank everybody again for all their work, and I suppose the Chair will echo that, so it saves me saying it.

An Cathaoirleach

I agree with Deputy Buckley. We thank the petitioners for coming in. We also thank Martha Dowling, Barbara Hughes, Ciarán McConway, Alex Alino and all the other staff. They make our job easy. Thank you.

The committee is adjourned until Thursday, 17 October 2024 at 1.30 p.m., when will meet in private and public session.

The joint committee adjourned at 3.16 p.m. until 1.30 p.m. on Thursday, 17 October 2024.