Skip to main content
Normal View

Joint Committee on Public Service Oversight and Petitions debate -
Wednesday, 7 Nov 2012

Decisions on Public Petitions Received: P00036/12 and P00043/12

The first petition for consideration today is P00036/12, from Mr. John Fox, concerning the lack of enforcement of legislation relating to cycling on footpaths in Galway city.

Members have been circulated with a summary note of the petition incorporating the research carried out. As the petitioner has not fully exhausted all avenues available to him to resolve the issue before submitting his petition, the recommendation is that the petition be closed. The secretariat proposes that the committee suggest to the petitioner that he may wish to write to the joint policing committee in Galway city requesting that it fully investigate the non-enforcement of the road traffic legislation. Is that agreed?

Ba mhaith liom nótáil gur ábhar tábhachtach é seo. Ceist í a bhaineann le go leor de na bailte atá againn agus is rud é a chuireann as do go leor daoine.

Ó thaobh an aidhm agus an ról atá ag an gcoiste, ní dóigh liom go mbaineann sé linn per se mar an aidhm atá againn ná iarraidh ar dhaoine gach bealach eile atá acu leis an scéal a leigheas a úsáid sular dtiocfaidh siad chomh fada linn. Sílim go bhfuil an moladh ciallmhar go dtiocfaidh siad chuig an comhchoiste póilíneachta i gcathair na Gaillimhe. Bím ag na cruinnithe sin. Bíonn siad ag déaláil le ceisteanna den chineál seo. I láthair ag an bhfórann sin bíonn an Garda, an bainisteoir cathrach agus na hionadaí tofa agus ionadaí pobail. Sin an bealach is fearr, agus déanaim moladh scríobh chuig an té chun é seo a mhíniú dó. Aontaíonn muid go bhfuil cás ann, ach ní hé seo an fóram is cui le seo a réiteach.

I agree with Senator Ó Clochartaigh. This is a good example of many of the petitions we will receive. They are genuine concerns and are what most of us would want enforced, encouraged or supported, but the committee is not the right vehicle to pursue them, unless the person concerned can indicate that he or she has exhausted many more avenues than this person has.

Agreed. The second petition for consideration is No. P00043/12, from a Mr. Thomas Kevin Walsh, concerning the current eligibility criteria for the back to education allowance for attending third level education. A summary note on the petition concerned and also the research carried out has been circulated to members. In order to qualify for the third level option on the back to education allowance, in addition to a number of other qualifying conditions, a person must have been in receipt of a qualifying social welfare payment for a minimum of 234 days. As the petitioner has been in receipt of jobseeker's benefit for only 126 days, his application for the back to education allowance was disallowed and the petitioner requested a review of this case. Following the review, the original decision remained unchanged. The petitioner is of the opinion that the regulations with regard to eligibility for the allowance for third level education are structured, either by accident or design, to prevent individuals such as himself from availing of the allowance, and he wants to see them changed. The recommendation is that the committee write to the Minister for Social Protection on the petitioner's behalf asking her to explain the rationale for the design of the scheme - that is, the requirement for applicants to have been in receipt of a qualifying social welfare payment for a minimum of 234 days for third level courses - and asking whether there are any plans to change these requirements in the near future.

So justice has not been done? The person does not qualify as the scheme stands.

No. He sought a review and the review confirmed the original decision that he did not have the required number of days.

Is it agreed that we inform him of that recommendation and that we send a letter to the Minister asking for the rationale behind the design of the scheme? Agreed.

When writing to the Minister, could we ask whether there are any plans to change the requirements in the near future, and whether a person who has already applied can reapply if the rules are changed? I suggest that point be made; otherwise, from now on anyone who has previously been rejected will be rejected for good.

That can be added. There is no problem with that. Consideration of the two petitions is finished for today.

We considered a number of petitions at the previous meeting and came to various conclusions. Is there a steady flow of petitions?

Some 37 petitions have been received to date, a number of which have been considered, while for others the process is ongoing.

I think we looked at ten.

I cannot remember what the figure was on the last occasion, but we have dealt with two today. A number of outstanding petitions are being investigated. Some homework needs to be done by us to get them to a stage at which we can make a decision on whether to formally accept them, forward them or investigate them, and whether they comply with the eligibility criteria.

Sitting suspended at 5.15 p.m and resumed at 5.20 p.m.
Top
Share