We are in public session. Petition P00056/12 is from Mr. Eugene O'Brien, regarding an individual working in a certain firm of solicitors - names are withheld - who was allegedly signing legal documents as a commissioner for oaths, when there was no record of his being appointed by the Supreme Court or being registered as a commissioner for oaths. We have had an opportunity to deliberate on this. Can we have some proposals for a decision?
Decisions on Public Petitions Received
It is a very serious matter that anybody would appear to have passed themselves off as a commissioner for oaths. I understand there is a register of commissioners for oaths, so perhaps we need to draw the attention of the president of the Law Society and the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court to the fact that the register needs to be upgraded and updated. It is not clear whether this problem is endemic or not. I think we need to refer the matter to both of those bodies.
I presume the particular case would be deemed inadmissible, but we can refer the policy matter on to the president of the Law Society and the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and the Minister for Justice and Equality for their comments. Is that agreed? Agreed.
Petition P00059/12 is from Mr. Gerard Linehan, regarding male discrimination and exploitation. The petitioner has made various complaints and allegations against the Judiciary, the legal profession, the Courts Service, the Land Registry and the Department of Justice and Equality in respect of how his family law case was handled. We have had a chance to deliberate on this. Are there any proposals? No. My understanding is that as this matter has been adjudicated by the courts, the courts are independent of the Oireachtas and it is not our role to second-guess their decisions. On that basis, it would be inadmissible. It is certainly not admissible under our Standing Orders, so we have to rule that out. We can bring to the petitioner's attention the fact that legislation is forthcoming on the judicial council and that there may be a chance to make representations on policy to Oireachtas Members at that time.
Petition P00060/12 is from Mr. Ross Quinn of Vasco corporate body, regarding the independence of the consultant appointed to draw up the Burren signage plan, as well as issues with the impartiality of Clare County Council. The petitioner considers it places the council in a conflict of interest situation, as it can use its special position to direct visitor traffic to its own facility at the Cliffs of Moher and away from tourist facilities in the adjoining villages. The omission of the R477 coast road from the Burren signage plan has caused particular difficulties for the petitioner and his business. Is there any recommendation on this?
This is a very interesting petition and we should welcome any petitions to the committee, but we need to be cognisant of our role. We are not here to adjudicate on particular grievances between individuals or, in this case, between a company and a local authority.
There is a sense that this might point to broader policy issues regarding the role a county council may play or the way in which it may use its authority or resources in a way which is beneficial to itself but perhaps to the detriment of another private operator. I propose that the committee write to the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government, which oversees the implementation of county development plans, to investigate how the individual planning consultant was hired to oversee this report on the signage in the county. It is a case of ensuring this was carried out in an appropriate manner and that the proper procedures were followed. It could be argued that this happens in every county and, therefore, we need to ensure there is a level playing field for everyone involved.
I second that proposal. It is a petition with various aspects, some of which are very personal to the petitioner and cannot be entertained by this committee. However, if this is a matter in which moneys are being spent on behalf of large communities and if it involves bodies such as Fáilte Ireland, then it is appropriate that moneys be spent correctly and that this committee investigate any policy issue. I am unsure if it is appropriate to advise the petitioner that Fáilte Ireland in particular is reviewing all signage for the west coast in light of its new campaign entitled Wild Atlantic Way.
Are the proposals agreed? Agreed.
Petition P00019/13 is from Mr. William Treacy regarding what the petitioner considers to be the misappropriation of public funds by Departments. We have had the opportunity to adjudicate on this petition so I will invite comments from members.
This committee's role is as a final arbiter when other lines of investigation have been exhausted. It is quite clear that the Office of the Garda Síochána Ombudsman is dealing with this case and that it has been brought to the attention of the Committee of Public Accounts. It is ruled inadmissible for this committee to adjudicate.
To clarify, the matter is with the Garda Síochána. Is that agreed? Agreed.
The next meeting of the committee will be with Mr. John O'Sullivan, petitioner. We are delighted that we will have a petitioner before us. Representatives from Mandate and IBEC and officials from the Department of Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation will discuss issues arising from Mr. O'Sullivan's petition regarding shortcomings in the employment appeals tribunal process. Is that agreed? Agreed.
Will the meeting last a couple of hours?
Yes. I ask members to take note of the change in date and time of the next meeting.
The joint committee adjourned at 5.05 p.m. until 10 a.m. on Thursday, 18 July 2013.