Joint Committee on Public Petitions and the Ombudsmen debate -
Thursday, 24 Oct 2024

Decisions on Petitions Received

An Cathaoirleach

I wish everyone a good afternoon. I welcome everyone to our public meeting. I remind members of the constitutional requirements that they must be physically present within the confines of the place which Parliament has chosen to sit, namely, Leinster House, in order to participate in public meetings. I will not permit a member to participate where he or she is not adhering to this constitutional requirement. Therefore, any member who attempts to participate from outside the precincts will be asked to leave the meeting.

I propose that the petitions considered by the committee at this meeting and at previous meetings and replies from the Departments and other bodies be published. Is that agreed? Agreed. We have six petitions for consideration today.

No. P00035/22 is entitled "Amend Child Care Act 1991 to provide HIQA with the necessary powers to sanction Tusla, Child and Family Agency when it fails to meet its statutory obligations”. This petition is from Ms Anna Kavanagh on behalf of Alliance of Birth Mothers Campaigning for Justice. The Alliance of Birth Mothers Campaigning for Justice is requesting that the Oireachtas initiate the necessary steps to amend the Child Care Act 1991, as amended in 2011, to provide HIQA with powers to sanction Tusla when it fails to meet its statutory obligations. The Alliance of Birth Mothers Campaigning for Justice is Ireland’s leading advocacy group for birth mothers whose children have been taken into State care by Tusla and says that birth mothers are met by the invisible iron fist of Tusla social workers when they notify Tusla management about failures to comply with national standards for children in foster care.

The Alliance of Birth Mothers Campaigning for Justice's 13,000 word report, The Triad Rules, was given to all Members of the last Dáil. The Tánaiste, Deputy Micheál Martin, had questioned the then Minister for children, Katherine Zappone, in September 2019. The then Minister, Katherine Zappone, referred to a number of recommendations in the Alliance of Birth Mothers Campaigning for Justice’s report, including having an outside body established to hold Tusla to account. HIQA carries out inspections in each of Tusla’s 17 service areas. HIQA publishes the results of these inspections, the vast majority of which find serious non-compliance in one or more standards inspected.

HIQA does not have the power under the Child Care Act 1991 to sanction Tusla. The latest report published by HIQA, on 8 June 2022, found the Cork service area, which has 26% of the total child population of Ireland, was compliant in just two of 12 standards inspected. HIQA has the legislative power to sanction Tusla when it fails to comply with national standards set down in law.

Action requested by petitioner is to amend the Child Care Act 1991 to provide HIQA with the necessary powers to sanction Tusla, the Child and Family Agency, when it fails to meet its statutory obligations. Actions taken by the secretariat so far include a lot of correspondence. I will give an indication of the dates that correspondence has been sent or received: 27 September 2022; 16 January 2023; two items on 18 January 2023; 24 October 2023; 15 November 2023; 1 December 2023; 14 December 2023; 1 February 2024; two items on 8 February 2024; two items on 28 February 2024; 7 March 2024; 8 April 2024; 29 April 2024; two items on 13 June 2024; two items on 19 September 2024; 8 October 2024; and 18 October 2024.

The committee recommends that the correspondence from Tusla be forwarded to the petitioner for comment within 14 days and that the correspondence from the petitioner be forwarded to Tusla for comment within 14 days. Do members have any views?

Deputy Pat Buckley

No.

An Cathaoirleach

In response to the petitioner Tusla has said that while HIQA does not place sanctions on Tusla, if it finds improvement must be made to service, it gets Tusla to complete a complaints plan which is followed up subsequently and inspection reports are posted on HIQA's website. I suggest we ask the petitioner for their response and go back to Tusla about the database. Did we ask about the database before? I suggest we follow up and see about that. Is that agreed?

Deputy Pat Buckley

Agreed.

An Cathaoirleach

The second petition is No. P00012/23 - “Justice [and] Safety” - C.J. Gaffney:

We are calling on the Government to compensate us out of the European Maritime Fisheries and Aquaculture Fund (EMFAF) which was offered at our meeting in Brussels and confirmed by the documents and radio interview contained in the links below by Irish MEPs and senior EU officials, considering the unique and unprecedented circumstances of the case. We must have rights in this day and age. We are also asking for an official and impartial investigation in all aspects of the case on how such a dangerous vessel was certified as passing all stability criteria and continuously issued with valid sailing certification. This vessel was also accepted onto the Irish Register and issued with an Irish Fishing License, and as such, what was the role of the Irish Marine Survey Office in the handling this case? We can provide numerous independent surveys, reports and professional opinions to make this a very quick and easy report to compile, which on the grounds of Health and Safety, will have a major impact on saving Fishermen’s lives across the whole EU. To highlight how this could've happened and to stop it from happening again just as the Dutch have done. We even have evidence (since 2010) of a German sister vessel to the Mary Kate, with it also having been found to be totally unseaworthy and having an inaccurate Stability Book, just like the Mary Kate. It’s a miracle these vessels didn’t capsize with a certain loss of all crew.

The action taken to resolve issue of concern before submitting the petition was as follows.

The Commission consulted DG MARK, ENTR and SANCO on the internal market/consumer protection and there is no EU angle to help. DG Tron were extremely helpful, but because the vessel is under 24 meters they have no Jurisdiction but Ireland has. Fishing vessels are not covered within the Single Market Legislation hence EU acquis on consumer rights are not applicable in this unique case. They are currently changing this rule because of all the associated issues. Safety, rights etc. We have contacted the EU, Irish Ombudsman, EU Petitions Committee on different issues of the same case but they couldn’t investigate. We were time barred in Germany and Holland and the Irish High Court ruled they had no Jurisdiction leaving us nowhere to go and awarded substantial costs against us. Article 47 Charter of Fundamental Rights should have allowed us to be heard.

It’s unbelievable we fall between the cracks in all avenues, as Irish and EU citizens to be cast adrift like this to deal with this ongoing life sentence with all associated difficulties, financial, mental health, relationships etc. when we did nothing wrong only buy a fully certified EU fishing vessel which after being on the Irish Registry was found to be a death trap the only good thing, I can say she wasn’t lost with all hands.

Regarding action taken by secretariat, I will again read out the dates of correspondence: 2 May 2023; 7 June 2023; two items on 14 June 2023; 22 June 2023; three items on 12 July 2023; 27 June 2023; 24 and 27 July 2023; 22 August 2023; four items on 15 November 2023; four items on 12 January 2024; 25 January 2024; 13 February; 11, 13 and 15 March 2024; 9 June 2024; 4 and 17 September 2024; and 17 October 2024.

The committee recommends that the members here today discuss the documentation and decide on the most effective route to take. Do members have any views?

Deputy Pat Buckley

This is going on a long time. It was 1992 or something when this started. I will take up to 2011, I think. The document here has 41 pages. I see the work that has gone into this. The way this family has been treated is diabolical. I will read out some quotes because it is interesting that they are still fighting in 2024. I am reading from p.11:

When we met the top two officials from Fisheries Department with acting Minister of Foreign Affairs, they told us they don’t talk to other Departments and when asked by the Minister to attend another meeting with Department of Transport and Foreign affairs to come up with a joint plan, they replied you’ve had your meeting and we won’t be attending anymore meetings and left.

I quote from page 12:

On Wednesday morning the 26th of January 2011, we attended a meeting which had been organized by MEP Pat the Cope Gallagher [and] MEP Liam Aylward in Brussels, which they could not attend as they had to be in the Dail for a vote. Present were Maja Kirchner Deputy Head of Commissioner Maria Damanaki Maritime Affairs and Fisheries, Miriam Schoeps Policy Advisor – Legal Affairs, Brendan O’Shea European Commission DG Maritime Affairs and Fishing, Laura Real assistant to Liam Aylward MEP and an assistant to Pat the Cope Gallagher, MEP.

Our party was made up of myself, C J Gaffney, my father Christy Gaffney, Hugh Kennedy Marine Lawyer, Justin Delaney, MSc Naval Architecture and Jakob Pinkster, MSc Naval Architecture. They told us they would do everything they could to help us including contacting the Irish Department of Fisheries and they would also contact Simon Coveney.

They said they would do this because they couldn’t award compensation to an individual otherwise, they would do it immediately, but that Ireland could use funding out of the European Fisheries Fund and if this money had already been allocated, they could make a representation requiring extra funding to cover any compensation they would give us.

Our case is unique and does not come under any bureaucratic rule or regulation. Based on the facts outlined in this letter, why did the Department of Agriculture, Food and Marine, given the force majeure of our case as outlined above, not seek a derogation from Brussels to compensate us from the European Fisheries Fund,

There was money there in a fund. When it was over, the delegation was told that even if the fund was spent, there was an opportunity to reapply. For the people outside, this is crazy. They have been flip-flopping around for years on this. The family, the business and everything is destroyed. It is going over three jurisdictions between Ireland, Germany and Holland and all seem to be passing the buck. To be fair to the case workers and secretariat on this committee, to obtain so much information that was not there before is amazing. It is very disingenuous when you see it written in black and white who was there and when it was done when it could have been resolved a long time ago. I recall a number of other vessels that came out of the same place with the same defect and we were worried about their safety.

I do not know what date this was flagged up but page 15 reads:

The Department of Transport did make both the European Commission and all other member states aware of potential safety concerns with other similar fishing vessels at the time.

At least the Department acknowledges that there was something wrong. Going back to what I originally quoted, there was a system there where this could have been sorted, but we have a Department saying, "We spoke to you once, and that is it." It replied, "You have had your meeting and we will not be attending any more meetings", and left it at that. It is absolutely shocking. It is very disingenuous of the Department. I would be very interested in what will be the best route of action for this. I thank the Chair for his indulgence.

An Cathaoirleach

Someone needs to answer for the fact that this unsafe vessel was registered as safe in the first place when it clearly was not. This family have been let down apparently every step of the way by the system because we have another situation here in which the buck seems to be passed from one to another all over Europe. As the Deputy stated, we know there are boats out there that are of the same make and that come out of the same factory. They have been found totally unseaworthy as well. It is a pity that this looks to be at a stage at which nothing will happen until a ship sinks, there loss of life or whatever. That is not good enough, as far as I am concerned. We know and the officials know that some of these boats that are out there on the water are totally unsafe. It has come to a stage where we need to get advice from people with the knowledge of the legalities involved in maritime law. I suggest that we identify a suitable professional who will assist in that regard now in order that we get stuff moving before the end of the term of this Government and that, even if this petition falls at the end of this term, there is a process in place when it is readmitted under a new Government.

Deputy Pat Buckley

Yes.

An Cathaoirleach

Do we go to the OPLA or do we go outside for legal advice?

Deputy Pat Buckley

Does that fall within the remit of the committee?

An Cathaoirleach

Will we go to the OPLA first and see what advice it can give us? If not, it might be able to point us in the direction-----

Deputy Pat Buckley

I probably have a source as well, but I would prefer not to say-----

An Cathaoirleach

Can the Deputy feed that through the secretariat or-----

Deputy Pat Buckley

Yes, I will feed it through the secretariat.

An Cathaoirleach

It is crazy that everybody recognises the problems that are out there and the danger of involved but that no one seems to be prepared to move it on. As the Deputy stated at the outset, this whole family has been destroyed because of the lack of movement from anybody in this case. Is it agreed that we contact the OPLA? Agreed.

An Cathaoirleach

No. P00028/24, entitled "My Petition to amend the Credit Union Act 1997. The Credit Union Act 1997 as amended. Section 56 B. Which covers the Nomination Committee of Credit Unions", is from Mr. Brian Gould. It states:

My Petition is to amend the Credit Union Act 1997, Section 56 B which covers the Nomination Committee of Credit Unions. The Nomination Committee can block, stop a Credit Union Member from standing for Election as Board Member or the Oversight Committee. A member needs the permission to stand for Elections Section 56 (B). The Credit Union Act 1997 as amended does not specifically proscribe an Appeals Process. An Organisation, Clique, Political Party, Group could extend its Influence over a Credit Union through the Nomination Committee.

The Nomination Committee is made up of the Board of Directors. It can also only allow current Board of Directors or Oversight Committee members to stand for Election. The Nomination Committee could keep the same Board of Directors or Oversight Committee in Office for 12 years or only allow people with the same views.

The actions requested by this petitioner are:

1. An Appeals Process be inserted into Credit Union Act 1997 as amended.

2. All members who wish to stand for Board of Directors or Oversight Committee be notified at least 14 days before AGM, where they are allowed to stand or NOT, so as to Challenge the Nomination Committee decision.

As regards action taken to resolve this before submission of the petition, the financial ombudsman cannot deal with this because it is not financial and requires legislation.

Again, there was a good bit of correspondence undertaken by the secretariat on this matter. That started on 12 February 2024 and there was further correspondence on 6 March 2024, 16 May 2024, 23 May 2024, twice on 27 June 2024, 22 July 2024, 19 September 2024 and 29 September 2024. The recommendation is that the correspondence from the petitioner be forwarded to the Department of Finance for comment within 14 days. Do members have any views?

Deputy Pat Buckley

I agree with that recommendation.

An Cathaoirleach

The recommendation is agreed.

No. P00037/24, "Mandate life-saving measures for babies born at 22 weeks in all Irish hospitals", is from Miss Dympna Whelan. It states:

On February 12, 2024, our daughter Bena-Blu was born at just 22 weeks and weighing only 420 grams. Despite the fact that she was alive and kicking, we were told that no life-saving measures would be taken because she hadn't reached the threshold of 23 weeks or weighed in at a minimum of 500 grams. We fought hard for our daughter's life but were denied the chance to save her. My daughter was left to take her last breaths lying on my chest. THE DIFFERENCE OF 80 GRAMS OR 6 DAYS COST ME MY BABYGIRL'S LIFE!!!!! I have witnessed myself babies at her age and less than her weight survive in this country and are now thriving.

The petitioner asks for this action:

To mandate life saving measures for babies born alive and breathing at 22 weeks as my baby was alive for 19 minutes and no saving measures were taken.

As regards action taken by the secretariat at this stage, there has been correspondence on 15 April 2024, 1 May 2024, again on 1 May 2024, twice on 23 May 2024, then on 4 October 2024 and 8 October 2024. The recommendation is that the correspondence from the petitioner be forwarded to the Health Service Executive for comment within 14 days. Do members have any views?

Deputy Pat Buckley

I agree with the petition. It is heart-wrenching. Let us see what action will come back from it. It is about progressing stuff for people. It is a very sad situation.

An Cathaoirleach

It is, and we send our thoughts to the petitioner. She is taking particular issue with the HSE's reference to best practice when, as she says, the weight of the baby was estimated as higher than was the case following birth. Also, the petitioner has an issue with what more could have been done in an accident and emergency environment. It is obviously distressing that at 22 weeks' gestation the birth fell short of the recommended threshold. This is obviously distressing for the petitioner, and it is actually distressing even reading out her petition. I suggest that we ask the HSE not to delay in its response. Maybe the petitioner is able to go down a legal route or something like that - we do not know - but, like I said, we will ask the HSE to correspond as quickly as possible to-----

Deputy Pat Buckley

I would love to see the response to that from the HSE, and then we might have a better part for the lady and-----

An Cathaoirleach

We will probably have a better idea where we can send the woman anyway.

Deputy Pat Buckley

Yes.

An Cathaoirleach

It is harrowing that the weight and those six days, as the petitioner says, seem to have been contributing factors. Is it agreed to do as proposed? Agreed.

P00058/24, entitled Flawed Legislation relating to Pensions and Social Security, from Mr. Frank Moran, is to ensure the entitlement of the 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, in section 81L(1)(ii). The changes in this law were adopted for members of the Civil Service contained in DPER Circular 18/2020. The title of the circular was Recognition of Same Sex Marriages/Civil Partnerships under Public Service "Original" Spouses' and Children's Contributory Pension Scheme. Appendix 2 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 Registration Act 2018.

Section 81(L): conditions for entitlement subsection (1)(ii):

that the member married or entered into a civil partnership with that person, within 36 months of the coming into operation of the Marriage Act 2015 (“the Act of 2015) or the Civil Partnership and Certain Rights and Obligation of Cohabitants Act 2010 (“the Act of 2010”).

The petitioners states:

On 24 September 2023, I applied to be reinstated in the "original" spouses' and children's contributory pensions scheme as provided for in Circular 18/2020. On 4 June, I received a formal response to inform me that my application had been refused because my civil partnership had not taken place before 1 January 2014 as required by section 81L(1)(c)(ii) of the Act. The relevant section is fatally flawed, discriminatory, unreasonable, unconstitutional and is offensive to its original equality intent.

On 24 September 2023 I applied to rejoin the ‘Original’ Spouses and Children's Contributory Pensions Scheme. The application was made to my former employer the Central Bank of Ireland.

The petitioner requested the following action. To remove the relevant section as it is fatefully flawed, discriminatory, unreasonable, unconstitutional and is offensive to its original equality intent.

There has been correspondence from the secretariat on 2 July 2024, 15 July 2024, 3 October 2024, the petitioner appearance before the committee and 4 October 2024.

The recommendation is that the correspondence from the petitioner be forwarded to the Department of Social Protection for comment within 14 days. Do members have any views?

Deputy Pat Buckley

No, Chair. We need to get a response back from the Department.

An Cathaoirleach

We await a response from the Department. The petitioner appeared before the committee on 3 October. From speaking to him at the meeting, it was clear that there is a gap in respect of equal access to entitlement. This matter should be investigated and investigated as quickly as possible. We did say to the petitioner that we would do all we can. It was also suggested contact be also made with the Library and Research Service. The Minister has been written to asking for response. We said we would contact the Library and Research Service to analyse the legislation to identify if there were any shortcomings there. We await the Department of Social Protection response to us. Is that agreed? Agreed.

P00063/24 is a petition to review and rectify the stamp 1 work visa requirements for third level graduates, from Mr. Oluwasegun Oriowo, which states:

My name is Oluwasegun Oriowo, and I am writing on behalf of hundreds of foreign nationals, including myself who have come to Ireland to further our education and contribute to its socio-economic development. We are deeply concerned about the restrictive nature of the Stamp 1G post-study visa and the current work permit requirements that significantly limit our employment opportunities. The current Stamp 1G post-study visa system, alongside the restrictive work permit requirements, significantly limits the employment opportunities for non-EU graduates, creating an unjust barrier to achieving their full potential in the Irish labour market. Address the decision-maker Ireland has long been a destination for international students seeking high-quality education. Many of us, including myself, arrived with dreams of leveraging our academic experience to contribute meaningfully to Ireland’s economy. However, despite our qualifications and aspirations, the transition from education to employment is fraught with challenges, primarily due to the restrictions associated with the Stamp 1G visa and the limited scope of the critical and general work permit lists. In my case for instance, after completing my Master's degree in English Literature, I was granted a two-year post-study visa (Stamp 1G). Despite my qualifications and earnest efforts to secure employment, I have faced numerous rejections due to my visa status and the unwillingness of employers to even attempt to give me and many more like me a chance at a fair recruitment process. This experience is not unique; many international graduates face similar obstacles, resulting in underemployment or forced departure from Ireland.

Key Issues with the Current System:

1. Bias and Discrimination: The Stamp 1G visa indirectly promotes discrimination in the job market. Many employers are hesitant to hire individuals on this visa, prioritizing those with more stable immigration statuses. This bias undermines Ireland's commitment to equal employment opportunities as enshrined in the Employment Equality Acts 1998-2015. ) One of the nine grounds on which discrimination is outlawed by the Employment Equality Acts is race, colour, nationality, ethnicity, or national origin.

2. Limited Employment Opportunities: The current critical skills list is narrow, focusing predominantly on tech and other high-demand sectors. This narrow focus excludes many qualified graduates in fields such as marketing, teaching, communications, sales, and many more. This exclusion forces graduates to remain underemployed or unemployed, wasting the potential that these skilled individuals bring to the Irish economy.

3. Economic Inefficiency: International students pay substantial tuition fees, averaging 12,000 per year. These students contribute significantly to the economy and bring diverse skills and perspectives. However, the restrictive visa and employment policies waste this potential, as many are forced to leave or remain in precarious employment situations. Legal Framework and Equal Employment Opportunity Ireland's Employment Equality Acts 1998-2015 prohibit discrimination on various grounds, including nationality. These laws aim to ensure that everyone has equal access to employment opportunities based on their abilities and qualifications. However, the practical application of these laws falls short for non-EU graduates, as visa restrictions create an inherent bias in the hiring process.

The action requested by the petitioner is as follows: "We are deeply concerned about the restrictive nature of the Stamp 1G post-study visa and the current work permit requirements that significantly limit our employment opportunities."

The actions taken by the secretariat were on 20 August and 23 September 2024.

The committee recommends the correspondence from the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment be forwarded to the petitioner for comment within 14 days. Do Members have any views?

Deputy Pat Buckley

No, Chair, just to agree to that..

An Cathaoirleach

We await a response from the Department. We will have a better idea then ourselves of what that is.

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.

The next item on the agenda is the approval of the minutes of the previous meeting. I apologise because normally we agree the minutes at the start of the meeting. The question is that we approve the minutes of the private and public meetings on 3 and 17 October 2024. They have already approved in a private meeting. We must do this for procedural reasons. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Do members have any other business they wish to raise?

Deputy Pat Buckley

No.

An Cathaoirleach

I would like to thank the clerk to the committee and the secretariat for all the work they do on our behalf. Their work is a massive help to us and to petitioners. We wish everyone the best.

The joint committee adjourned at 3 p.m. until 1.30 p.m. on Thursday, 7 November 2024.