Joint Committee on Public Petitions and the Ombudsmen díospóireacht -
Thursday, 21 Mar 2024

Decisions on Public Petitions Received

An Cathaoirleach

We will now deal with the consideration of public petitions. I propose that the petitions considered by the committee at this meeting and previous meetings be published and that the replies from the Departments and other bodies also be published. Is that agreed? Agreed.

There are seven petitions for consideration today. The first is P00006/22, which concerns by-elections in Ireland and how they may comply with legislation but not with the Constitution. The petitioner is Mr. John O'Malley, who states that:

The onus is on representatives elected to the Dáil/Seanad to ensure that the Democratic Process in relation to Dáil Elections is compliant with the Constitution. I am now asking you to amend legislation to make Bye/By Elections compliant with the current Constitution, to ensure that the wishes of the electorate are adhered to for the duration of the Dáil. This can quite easily be done by amending legislation similar to the system applied to EU and Council/Corporations elections where the electorate decisions are adhered to during the duration of the said bodies tenure even though such bodies electoral systems are not enshrined in the Constitution. Or alternately will you consider getting an all-party committee to examine same.

Or if you persist with the current legislation, are you going to organise a Referendum? If you are in any doubt, see, See Crotty v. An Taoiseach 1987. "It is not within the competence of the Government, or indeed the Oireachtas to free themselves from the constraints of the Constitution.

The recommendation is that the correspondence from the petitioner be forwarded to the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage for comment within 14 days and that we write to the Electoral Commission to gauge the progress made on by-elections. Do members have any views on this?

Deputy Pat Buckley

No. It is agreed.

An Cathaoirleach

The petitioner is not satisfied with the response from the Department with its reference - or lack of reference, according to the petitioner - to Article 16. We recommend that the petitioner's concerns, as outlined in his letter, be forwarded to the Department for response so that the shortcomings, as the petitioner sees them, are addressed. Do we need to discuss the parts of the correspondence that the petitioner wishes to keep confidential? Do members have any views on this? In private session, we asked whether it would be worthwhile writing to the Electoral Commission regarding the proposal in its draft research programme that the commission examine matters concerning by-elections to ask if that work has started and, if so, how much progress has been made on it.

Senator Gerard P. Craughwell

We might as well try to get the most comprehensive answer as possible.

An Cathaoirleach

Yes, we should seek the most comprehensive answer possible for our petitioner. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Petitioner No. P00035/22 concerns amending 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. The petitioner is Ms Anna Kavanagh, who states:

The Alliance of Birthmothers Campaigning for Justice (ABC) is requesting that the Committee 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 Birthmothers Campaigning for Justice (ABC) is Ireland’s leading advocacy group for Birthmothers whose children have been taken into state care by Tusla.

HIQA carries out inspections in each of Tusla’s 17 service areas. HIQA publishes the results of these inspections, the vast majority of which finds 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, 8 June 2022, found the Cork service area which has 26% of the total child population of Ireland, was compliant in just two of twelve standards inspected.

The secretariat received a response from the Ombudsman for Children, dated 31 March 2024, in relation to the correspondence from the petitioner. There has been correspondence over and back, a lot of which has been between the secretariat, the petitioner and the different Departments. The recommendation is that the correspondence from HIQA be forwarded to the petitioner for comment with 14 days and that we agree on a suitable date to invite the group, as we previously agreed on 14 December 2023, to put its case to the committee and to the ombudsman thereafter. Do members have any views on this?

Deputy Pat Buckley

No. I agree with the recommendation.

An Cathaoirleach

The petitioner has concerns around accountability. The role of HIQA is seen as inspecting, making findings and working with Tusla in bringing standards that fall short back up to where we want them to be. We all want the highest standards when we are dealing with children.

Senator Gerard P. Craughwell

From my perspective, further scrutiny of Tusla is not such a bad idea given that so many children have disappeared, especially migrant children who came into the country unaccompanied by an adult. The only problem I have is that I am not sure whether HIQA is the relevant organisation. Its role is more about facilities and infrastructure in medical centres and the like. I am not sure if it is the competent authority to oversee the likes of Tusla, but Tusla does need oversight.

An Cathaoirleach

The Ombudsman for Children's advice to the petitioner is that complaints can be made through Tusla's "Tell Us" system. The petitioner is not happy with this advice and argues that Tusla is inspecting itself. This is where the concern lies. If HIQA is not the body to investigate, who should we recommend does so when we next have the ombudsman in front of the committee?

Senator Gerard P. Craughwell

I am not sure that the Ombudsman is an appropriate authority either to inspect. I have an issue with these agencies, organisations, Departments, etc. They should ultimately be answerable to a committee of the Oireachtas and they should be overseen by a committee of the Oireachtas. That is what we should be doing. There is a tendency to try to off-load our responsibilities to other agencies. For the sake of argument, if you were to set up an oversight body to look at Tusla, that oversight body would have to come before this committee or some other committee and be answerable for the work it does. It is my view that organisations as important as Tusla should be directly answerable to a committee of the Oireachtas-----

An Cathaoirleach

That Tusla should be.

Senator Gerard P. Craughwell

That would be the recommendation that I would like to put forward. I am not sure how my colleagues feel about that but that would be my view.

Deputy Pat Buckley

I totally agree that it has to be an Oireachtas committee. It is public money that is being spent to run these agencies. The first reaction would be the that it should be Public Accounts Committee. We have as much power and responsibility as the Public Accounts Committee and we should have these agencies in front of us and they should be able to answer those questions on behalf of the petitioner as well. Let us have the petitioner give us the questions so that we can actually ask them those questions. That is what it is about. It is about accountability and it is about responsibility, and that is where the big problem is here, that is, the lack of it. I have seen that over the years. Every time the revised book of Estimates comes out I look at the revised Estimates for the HSE when it comes to legal cases, court cases and compensation. That is never spoken about. Whatever happens in the High Court, you never see the name of who was held accountable or who was responsible for those mistakes or whether anybody was sacked. Why? There is no oversight, there is no accountability and no questions are being asked because it is done inside the court of law. I agree that we should bring that in here.

Senator Gerard P. Craughwell

I wonder if there would be merit in bringing the petitioner in here and letting them outline their case by crafting questions that they believe should be answered and then bring Tusla in and put those questions to it in order to give closure to the petitioner's case. They may not get the answers that they want but at least they will have had their moment of having the issue heard. I think this issue is probably the place to do that because I am not sure - I will take the secretariat's advice on this - there is any other committee that could deal with Tusla in this way and which we could pass this on to.

Deputy Richard O'Donoghue

I agree 100%. I am in business and if you look at any business in this country, whether you are self-employed, you are a limited company or whatever you are, you are held accountable by Revenue and by the Departments. You are held accountable by everyone. Why is Tusla not held accountable in the same way HIQA needs to be held accountable? Anyone who makes a decision if it is with Government money or anyone who makes a decision for whatever sector they are in has to be held accountable. We have seen the practices of decades gone by where things have been pushed around in a circle and there is no accountability. If you look at all the different organisations, they think they have anonymity and protection. Whether they are in a section in an NGO, whether they are in a section of a Department or whichever section they are in, they think they are untouchable. It needs to change. Every section needs to be held accountable.

If the executive of a county council, the HSE or another organisation makes a mistake, they need to be held accountable for their action. If they get something wrong, we can correct it but if we keep sweeping things under the carpet, pushing it away and using taxpayers' money to fight it, we will never correct the mistake. Everyone in this room can make mistakes but anyone who makes a mistake should be held accountable. We will fix it and move forward. I 100% agree the petitioner and HIQA should be brought in.

An Cathaoirleach

I call Senator Murphy.

Senator Gerard P. Craughwell

While we are waiting on Senator Murphy, has the secretariat a view on this? Would it be appropriate to have Tusla before this committee or should it be another committee, like the health committee, for example?

Clerk to the Committee

We can discuss it with the health committee and the children's committees as well.

An Cathaoirleach

Will we get the petitioners in first, was that Senator Craughwell's recommendation? We can get their view and what they want us to find out from Tusla? If Tusla can appear in front of us, we will get it in here after that.

Senator Gerard P. Craughwell

It is important that the petitioner is aware of the fact that if they are bringing specific evidence, it should be empirical evidence that will stand the test of scrutiny. One thing we do not want is the committee to be used as a battering ram with no solid ground behind it. That would want to be made perfectly clear to the petitioner when they come in.

Deputy Richard O'Donoghue

I refer to going to the health committee or whichever committee members said. The petition's committee is here for petitions. We have the same rights as the health committee or any other committee which have the likes of Tusla, HIQA or anyone else in front of them. It is not about whether "it is the case". It is the case and they should be brought in front of us. We have the same authority and standing as any other committee in this House. I am not saying it is something for the health committee. There are things going around all the different committees and it is dragging on too long. Bring them in and let us see where it goes. If two committees have to deal with it, there is nothing wrong with that either.

An Cathaoirleach

This is an argument we have with different Departments. They just shove things from one to another.

Deputy Richard O'Donoghue

No. We should insist.

An Cathaoirleach

If there is agreement, we will get the petitioner in and hear their concerns. We will get Tusla in after that. Is that agreed? Agreed.

The next item is P00066/22, to create a health service's student allowance. It is from Mr. Joel Rajesh. This petition relates to healthcare students in Ireland facing substantial costs in relation to placements at HSE public hospitals. This includes costs in respect of meals, subsistence, scrubs, purchase, laundry and accommodation and travel to placement sites. An allowance scheme for those costs exists for student nurses but does not exist for student doctors, radiographers, dentists, pharmacists or physiotherapists. A universal health service student allowance would relieve a massive financial burden for these students and would make retaining these future graduates within the health service easier. Students are often unemployed during term time and rely on family contributions. During the current recruitment and retention crisis for the public health service staff such small measures are vital and should be strongly considered.

The recommendation is that the correspondence of the petitioner would be forwarded to the Department of Health for comment within 14 days, along with writing to the Department of Health to inquire whether they can avail of the same type of scheme as junior doctors, nurses, etc. Do members have any views?

Deputy Richard O'Donoghue

I know nurses did not get paid during their internship until the last year. That was the case but now there is a payment in place. Do the junior doctors get paid or is it the same system as the one for nurses? That is one question I would have but as an employer, I know that if anyone works in a place where you have to have PPE gear, for example, the contractor provides it. If it is a case that you are travelling to different places, the employer pays for it. Why can the HSE not do the same for trainees?

An Cathaoirleach

If we are going to try to entice young people to stay here, we need to put a system in place that actually helps them. We have a system that leaves a lot of them with no choice but to leave the country.

I call Senator Craughwell.

Senator Gerard P. Craughwell

As a former leader of a trade union in the education area, nobody should be out of pocket during their training other than whatever fees they pay for their course. If it is, for example, mandatory that you spend six months in St. Vincent's hospital, St. James's Hospital or somewhere and that incurs a cost of having to travel to and from home, we must remember they are students and not doctors. However, it is a double-edged sword here because when many of our doctors, physiotherapists, psychologists and the like finish their training and qualify, the first thing they do is leave the country.

What is being asked is for the taxpayer to subvent someone who will emigrate and will take the expertise he or she has been given while he or she was here. There must be some sort of payback for the investment by the State when we talk about such top careers in the public service - and they are public service careers. I am not sure how this would be done but would be interested in having the representative organisations come before the committee although I do not know whether my colleagues would agree. Were the Irish Nurses and Midwives Organisation, INMO, and the Irish Medical Organisation, IMO, to be brought in here tomorrow morning, they would say they do not take responsibility for those people while they are students. A framework is needed to be put around this and I would be interested in hearing what their views are on how we might best benefit the State. At the end of the day, my heart is with the students and that they would get the best of everything to ensure they get the best qualifications. However, my head says that you and I and those who are watching this, that is, the taxpayers, cannot be in a position where we subvent people from taxpayers' money only for them to emigrate to get great jobs in other countries. That is a bone of contention everywhere in respect of those top professional areas.

An Cathaoirleach

To be fair to the petitioner, he only asks that the Department considers creating a commission to see if it is possible to have the same right across the board for all the professions. I totally agree with what the Senator is saying.

Deputy Pat Buckley

We are caught between a rock and a hard place. As for retention and contractual law, if people are being subvented, it is not hard to write up a contract that states that once a person is qualified, he or she will work there for the next five years. We have the best trained people in the planet but the working conditions, the cost of living and the whole lot is what pushes them out. People see the quality of life, the retainers and bonuses they will be paid if they go to Dubai, as well as accommodation being paid for. Going back 25 or 30 years, I recall that my first cousin was a nurse in Southampton, where all the trainee nurses had on-site accommodation supplied to them, which made it a lot easier for them.

Another issue, which we discussed in private session as well, is that the training we are talking about is very similar to apprenticeships. Apprenticeship rates are very low and there is a lot of travelling involved. Could those people not be subvented with the jobseeker's allowance because for half of their training, it would be practically cost neutral? I do not suggest this for the full training but for half of it. We would not have people sitting on their backsides, doing nothing and still drawing money whereas with this, it would encourage the individual to progress through his or her apprenticeship, training or whatever it is, while having a bit of self-worth and affordability. It is correct that most employees supply all the PPE gear but if there was a contractual agreement for whatever X amount of years, at least there would be a payback there. It is about helping everybody. I spoke to five student nurses a while ago who were nearly qualified and not one of them is going to stay in the country. They are gone.

Deputy Richard O'Donoghue

That is the system in use in the UK. If nurses go for their training in the UK, they are supplemented but they are contracted to work back there for three years, not five. When a person went to the UK to do training as a nurse, some of the places here would not take him or her when he or she came back here. They said that the person was trained differently in the UK than a person is here.

As for the problem we have now with the shortage of GPs and the idea of primary care centres, I will use Kilmallock as an example. I used it yesterday too. There are five GPs in that primary care centre and there is planning permission for an extra 6,000 sq. ft onto that system. It could be used for day-care services for people who need stitches, oxygen, a drip service and so forth. They would use the system for a day and would take off it. It would also encourage trainee GPs and nurses to go to towns and villages in which there is a primary care centre in the knowledge that their travel will be covered for them to get in and out. This means they would be encouraged to go to those centres and that they can actually be put outside of the cities, whereas all major hospitals are within the cities. This is a massive problem with GPs because this is no longer viable for them. If something is put in to subvent these people, care to cover the whole country will be encouraged and not just people coming into the hospital sector. It will encourage people to stay.

To go back to what Deputy Buckley said, the cost of living, education and travelling are what is stopping people here. The cost of everything has increased now. We must ensure that we have a plan in place. Going back to accommodation, it 100% should be supplied to anyone who is in our front-line services. The Government should have buildings in which it can supply on-site for them during their training. That would mean they would not have a problem with accommodation and we could keep people here while they do their training. There should be an element of payback that is returned here, which would give people a chance to settle and have a life here.

Senator Gerard P. Craughwell

I have a couple of points on this. First and foremost, the petitioner is looking for the commissioning of a report. We should put a bit of framework around whatever study that would be carried out by having the representative bodies in here. I would go right across the medical profession and have all of them make a submission as to what they think should be put in place. Simply asking for a study could lead us anywhere. We must get them to focus in on what we want.

On the accommodation issue, we have been harping on about it in the defence area for a number of years. Deputy Buckley would be able to tell you of the fantastic job that has been done in Haulbowline in producing accommodation for sailors. It shows what can be done if the effort is put behind it. Approximately five or six years ago, I spoke to Respond, or Clúid, and I know that such bodies would be interested in putting an apartment block within close proximity to a hospital for example because in a situation like that, they would have a constant throughput of tenants. It is only right and proper. For example, the University of Limerick provides a conversion course from an ordinary degree to a medical qualification. In a lot of cases, the people involved in that course are already involved in relationships, have partners and the like and having accommodation they can use while they train would make perfect sense. All of these things must be costed and looked at and that is why we should bring the bodies before this committee to hear what they have to say. We could draft a report which might change the way we look at those who take these professions, as Deputies O'Donoghue and Buckley said. Gone are the days in which being a student doctor was the preserve of the sons of doctors, solicitors or somebody from the professions. Ordinary people can do it now, too. Therefore, we should do everything we can to level the playing pitch. I put that forward as a proposal. The representative bodies, like the IMO and the INMO, may quickly turn around and state they have no interest in this but if they did that, then we would know.

Deputy Pat Buckley

Yes, this is true.

An Cathaoirleach

Yes, no problem.

Deputy Richard O'Donoghue

To go back to construction, in a place of work, proper PPE gear must be supplied to everyone for their safety. Surely to God, if you are in a place of front-line services, everything you need must be supplied to you. There should not be any cost involved in that. If it is there for the private sector, why is it not there for the public sector? If it is enforced on the one hand but it is not being put out on the other, is that not a double standard? It is being enforced on one person but not the other.

Deputy Pat Buckley

I agree with the proposal to bring in the responsible bodies because in Cork University Hospital, CUH, where staff are charged extortionate money for parking, they now want to use the car park for an extension that will leave staff with nowhere to park. They will have to move away from CUH and probably will go across to the private car park. We are going backwards. I sat on the autism committee and we had a summer provision Bill, which hopefully will emerge.

We wanted to include all trainees who would be volunteers for the summer provision, for three, six, nine or however many weeks it was, to work with children with autism and they would be accredited X number of hours for that as part of their training regardless of whether they were going to be electricians, welders or doctors. Again, it was trying to push people into these professions and retain them.

As has been said, some of this gang are doing apprenticeships and then there is a break and they do not get a brown penny. People are told they will not get paid for this but at least it will be another 12 weeks less when they go back to complete their apprenticeship, so it is a win-win situation. That is about it. It is very interesting.

Senator Gerard P. Craughwell

Deputy O'Donoghue made the point about people working in construction. I was involved in a major chemical site many years ago. We were provided with everything from our steel toe cap boots to helmets, earmuffs and the whole shooting gallery. I had reason to write to the health service some time ago about people being provided with work wear or scrubs as they are called in the hospitals - these blue uniforms and things. I was on my way to one of the Dublin hospitals when I stopped in a supermarket to get a few sweets for the person I was going in to visit and there was a nurse in scrubs beside me. I agree with Deputy O'Donoghue. People should be provided with work wear. I am delighted that in St. James's Hospital when people finish their shifts, the scrubs are pushed into a machine and when people come in, there is a little door they open to get a new set of scrubs. That should be standard across all health services. The HSE when it responded to me was deeply concerned about the wearing of uniforms outside of the hospital. This arose as a result of Covid-19 and people bringing disease out and in with them.

An Cathaoirleach

And bringing disease back in.

Senator Gerard P. Craughwell

Anyway, I digress; that is going off the issue. The question is whether we all agree to bring in the representatives of bodies and get their views on what should be done with respect to training.

An Cathaoirleach

We will make up a list of the professions, such as junior doctors and so forth, that are mentioned in the petition.

Senator Gerard P. Craughwell

We will just take the ones that are mentioned in the petition.

An Cathaoirleach

We will bring them in.

Senator Gerard P. Craughwell

We might include the nurses on the basis that they have a system in place and see what they might add to the discussion.

An Cathaoirleach

I will go back to something Deputy Buckley said about retention. There is a system in place. A family member who is an accountant is going through training but once that training is finished, people are tied in for three years. It is part of the agreement that people are put through the examinations and the whole lot but at the end of it, they are tied for three years so the company gets its investment back. Why not work with the same kind of system in the health service? Does Deputy Buckley wish to come back in?

Deputy Pat Buckley

This is not about holding a competition or going after certain parts of the Department. Not all committees are in place to find out what people are hiding or not doing right. It is about trying to facilitate ideas and things that may happen outside the box. We can go on the record here and say that as legislators, if we had been told this, we could actually make provisions within the law and structures to actually help. That is what it is about. People outside could be thinking we are on another witch-hunt. It is not about that. It is about gathering the information. As I always say, it is basically about gathering all the ingredients and baking the right cake. You cannot make an apple tart without apples. It is as simple as that.

Senator Gerard P. Craughwell

That is a fair point.

An Cathaoirleach

Is it agreed that we invite the different organisations to appear before the committee? Agreed.

The next petition is No. P00012/23 entitled, "Justice and Safety", from Mr. C.J. Gaffney, which states:

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.

There is a lot of information and very interesting data included.

Senator Gerard P. Craughwell

This case particularly raises the issue of European responsibility because if a ship or, in this case, a fishing vessel was licensed in one jurisdiction, it is more than likely that when it came to be relicensed in Ireland, it was a rubber-stamp operation. There would have been no serious effort to establish the stability of the particular ship or boat.

This particular family appeared before the committee and they haunt me. It is not the fact that they have been so badly treated, although that in itself is bad; it is the fact that this vessel went through tests. It was in service and was purchased as a working vessel. It was licensed by the Irish authorities. In some way or other, once all that was done, the authorities washed their hands of it and wanted nothing to do with it; it was tough luck. The man's livelihood has been taken from him. His boat has been taken from him. Everything he based his future on is gone. Everything that family based their future on is gone. I still think we have a responsibility, first and foremost as a nation, to compensate him. People will argue that is not the way it should be done, but Europe is too big for a family to fight. It is up to the State then to go after Europe to get the compensation and particularly after the Dutch authorities. We should tell the Dutch authorities that they originally licensed this craft.

An Cathaoirleach

They licensed this boat.

Senator Gerard P. Craughwell

I am deeply unhappy with that. The Cathaoirleach was quite taken with the family when they came in, as were Deputy Buckley and various other members. I do not know what we can do.

An Cathaoirleach

I totally agree with the Senator. What haunts me more is that all the officials in this country and in Europe know another three similar boats were out there for which no one is taking responsibility. People's lives are at risk. We spoke the other day in private session about how we, as a committee, are duty-bound to raise these issues that concern people lives. It is about health and safety as well as the compensation for a family who have gone through horrific times. They sat in front of us and we listened to their story of what they went through and continue to go through. It is frightening. Like I said, there are maybe 25 or 30 people on any one of those boats out fishing. If we multiply that by three, the casualty numbers could be horrific if something is not done. The frightening thing is that no one seems to want to take responsibility for those other three boats. This family spent a small fortune to get their boat up to standard, which they should not have had to do because, as Senator Craughwell said, it went through all the systems in Europe, Holland and here getting licensed and then suddenly, somebody decided to pull the plug.

Deputy Pat Buckley

Sick to the stomach is the way I described it when we listened to the witnesses. However, what was more terrifying about it was the way they were treated. Something like nine boats came out of this factory. It is similar to the national car test, NCT, and four of these boats practically failed the NCT and were allowed out. Nobody is being held responsible for that.

That poor man spent quite an amount on purchasing the vessel, extending it and trying to get the buoyancy right and still it would not work. His and his family's livelihood and that of generations of his family were wiped out in one go because of somebody's incompetence. It also affected his crew. He took the responsibility and said that ship was not safe and had to be grounded, and those people lost their jobs. Senator Craughwell is correct that one family is not big enough to take on Europe. What sickens me more, however, and the Chair said it, is that three more boats are still operating in Europe. I do not know whether that factory is still operating, but somebody has to be held responsible if one of those boats flips over and people are killed.

I did a lot of work on a protected disclosure and, like I said, it is very similar. That gentleman spoke out and exposed this and made a disclosure that there are three more boats out there. We, as elected representatives, are duty-bound to report that if it is something of national concern that could affect the country or if it falls under health and safety legislation and could affect somebody's life expectancy.

I do not know who we should go to. Should we go to the Minister, or whoever is responsible, and say this is a major concern? I am going to put this on record and I think everyone else should be of the same view. I would not like to come back to the committee in a couple of weeks and say we have found out that one of those boats has flipped over, with six, ten or 12 people killed, even though we had said it at this meeting. We would hate to have to say we told them so.

Why has nobody been held responsible for this? We are all equal under the great European law until something goes wrong, and when it comes down to accountability and responsibility, everybody tries to bury it. That individual is very lucky to have all those experts and friends with him. He has top-of-the-class experts and they have all the proof, but no one wants to take responsibility. I do not care who is in government. As a nation, we should be duty bound to protect our own and to fight on behalf of those who have been wronged. That is the way I feel about it. As I said, I recently dealt with a protected disclosure that had been going on for 18 months. Eventually, there was a fatality, and I had been beating down the door for 18 months saying something was going to happen. I certainly would not like anyone to have been in my shoes because when I heard that, my heart sank. I still get emotional about it because I feel responsible that I did not do enough.

We have to approach this as a matter of urgency. I do not know how long it has been going on but these people should not be let down, and those who failed these people should be held to account and held responsible for this because somebody has to pay.

Deputy Richard O'Donoghue

We are back to the issue of accountability, but now it is accountability in the context of people's lives. It is also in the context of the future of a family. They made the decision based on the protection of lives and now they are being treated in this manner. If there is a defective vehicle, of whatever type, the responsibility has to go back to the manufacturer, but it is fighting with money. Every large business, whether international or otherwise, does that. It is easier to fight these cases and push them. The Government does it as well, as does the HSE. They all do it. They use their money to fight things to push them down the line and hope they will go away rather than fix the problem.

Here we have three more defective vessels. Imagine if one of our brothers or sisters was on one of those vessels and we knew they were defective. The Government now knows, through this committee, that there are defective vehicles. The responsibility has to come back to somebody. Please God, nothing will go wrong, but we know something is wrong. With all the will in the world, the Government has to intervene here to make sure somebody is held to account and to fix the problem. If that protects one life, it will be worth it. If you make a mistake, you have to own up and try to fix it. The problem is that if you make a mistake in this country, it is about fighting it rather than saying that you got it wrong, that you are sorry and that you will fix it. If we had a lot more of that among Departments, we would have a lot fewer cases and we would waste a lot less taxpayers' money. They are using money to fight the good.

An Cathaoirleach

I understand this has been going on since 2007, so the family have been fighting it for 17 years. We can imagine the toll of trying to take on two states and the EU over that length of time and the affect that has had on the family. The Department is aware of it, or should be aware at this stage given its representatives have previously appeared before this committee. Some of the problems relate, as we have heard, to the fact two or three Departments are involved and they just shove the issue around. The recommendation is that we bring in representatives of the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine and the Department of Transport, especially the head of the marine survey office. It comes down to the fact we have an obligation, as does the Government, to make sure that down the line we will not be hearing about something serious happening and lives having been lost.

Senator Gerard P. Craughwell

I have no difficulty bringing in representatives of those two Departments but before we do that, we should seek to be provided with the marine inspector's report that gave the licence to that boat. We should be provided with all the documentation that led to the licence being awarded. Thereafter, and the secretariat may tell me we do not have the power to do this, we should get an independent marine engineer to forensically examine the sequence of inspection that led to a licence being awarded. At that stage, we will be sufficiently informed to question the Departments on this.

It is simply not good enough for us - the uninformed, the great unwashed - to try to put ourselves into the persona of a marine engineer. We heard from two marine engineers during the discussion on the petition, but we need an independent person to forensically examine everything that happened between the day that fishing vessel was launched and the day when the adjustment to its size took place. We need that so as to know exactly the sequence of events. We then also need access to the marine inspectorate at European level because if three ships or boats are still on the sea, and we know from the evidence given that there is one in Germany, we need to know what Europe has done to take those boats out of the water or to force them to be rectified.

This committee and the Oireachtas are big enough to take on Europe. The family involved should be compensated by the State, which should go after the relevant authority in Europe to get it done. To have all our ducks in a row, however, we need to have expert opinion on which we can rely when we make a recommendation. I would be slow to bring in representatives of either Department until we have fuller information.

An Cathaoirleach

Offhand, do we know whether we can look for that information?

Deputy Richard O'Donoghue

Yes, it is accessible under freedom of information, FOI.

Deputy Pat Buckley

No, it will not be given until it has been buried in legal.

Deputy Richard O'Donoghue

The licensees who have appeared before the committee can request the documentation from the licensing.

An Cathaoirleach

We will ask about it and if need be, we will FOI it. We will see then whether we can get an independent person to look at it.

Senator Gerard P. Craughwell

We could get all the documentation we want but at the end of the day, it may be of no use to us. I know that Deputy O'Donoghue, who has an engineering background, might understand some of it but I would certainly be out of my depth. From that point of view, we need an expert.

Deputy Richard O'Donoghue

If a declaration were signed by the witnesses who appeared before the committee stating we could act on their behalf, we could then request information. I believe it goes back to them. They can authorise us to look for that information but it has to come from them.

An Cathaoirleach

I would imagine the family have those kinds of reports, but the Senator was referring to engaging somebody independent to look at it on behalf of the committee.

Senator Gerard P. Craughwell

Yes, I am saying the two marine engineers we heard from during the discussion on the petition have all the information, but they have all the information as contracted by the family. That, in itself, would cause it to be biased, in my view, and necessitates the prospect of an independent engineer to advise us. Maybe I am pushing the committee beyond its limits.

Deputy Pat Buckley

It is a bit outside the box but-----

Senator Gerard P. Craughwell

This complaint runs to millions of euro. We are not talking about pennies here. We are talking about millions, so we need to be certain about it.

An Cathaoirleach

Yes, and people's lives are more important than any amount of money. We got a response from the OPLA and we can circulate the document to members. We can again engage with the family on the reports the Senator is asking about and we will find out whether this committee can get independent assistance in going through that.

Senator Gerard P. Craughwell

We should bear in mind that this is a family who cared so much about their employees that they sank their own business. The man could have kept going on a risk and a wing and a prayer that nothing might ever happen. He put the safety of his crew above everything else. I lost a business and my house and I know what it is like, but it was my fault. This was not his fault. The man has operated above any level that would be expected of him, and the least we can do as a nation is stand behind him. I know that the Departments’ advice is that if we fix this one, hundreds more will come behind it, but that is never an excuse.

An Cathaoirleach

Yes, it is nonsense. I fully agree the Gaffney family did everything to protect their staff and that has cost them an awful amount. People in power are just not willing to take responsibility for three boats we know are out there with the same issues.

Deputy Richard O'Donoghue

On the Senator's point about getting an independent voice on this, one thing we can do is look for the paperwork from the Gaffney family. We can also look for the declaration stating we can request the same information from the licensing authorities. We will then have paperwork from both sides to compare to make sure that when we make the decision, we will have both sides of the information and the experts can then tell us what went wrong. I am not saying the Gaffneys' paperwork is wrong but, for the protection of the Gaffney family and for everyone's sake, we should get the paperwork from both sides and ensure it lines up.

Deputy Pat Buckley

Given our committee is called the Joint Committee on Public Petitions and the Ombudsman and we work with the European Ombudsman, has she played any part in this over the years? If there is a European Ombudsman, why can we not use it?

Senator Gerard P. Craughwell

She is one of our own.

Deputy Pat Buckley

Yes, and it beggars belief. I know the lady, Emily O'Reilly, because we have worked with her previously. She is very thorough. I do not know whether it has been flagged with the European Ombudsman. It goes back a while before her tenure, so it might have been dealt with by a different ombudsman. I would suggest that if she does not have that information, we might flag it up with her as well because that would give the case strength and weight. It is not about passing the buck. We have a European Ombudsman for rights-based issues.

I feel strongly about this. I cannot find words for how people can do this to other people. The victims, if we can call them that, or families who have been affected have been totally and utterly ignored and told that, unfortunately, they bought the vessel, that it is no longer the manufacturer's baby and that the guarantee expired when the vessel left the garage or whatever. That is not the way people do business in this country.

Senator Gerard P. Craughwell

This State has negotiated with people on their deathbed to resolve an issue having fought them for years while they still had some bit of health. In this case, the man who appeared before the committee was calm and was very focused in what he had to say. To my mind, he came across as an extremely credible witness. I do not want this committee in any way to provide an out for a Department that is rigid in its view, saying the Minister should not touch it because, if he does, hundreds more cases will come after it.

Deputy Pat Buckley

It is not good enough.

Senator Gerard P. Craughwell

If hundreds more cases will come after it, we need to look at our marine inspectorate and see what it is doing in licensing boats that are not worthy.

An Cathaoirleach

There are hundreds more cases.

Senator Gerard P. Craughwell

I think we are all in agreement as to where we need to go. I thank the Chair for his willingness to allow this to be discussed in the way it is being, and I thank the secretariat for getting us an answer so quickly from the OPLA.

An Cathaoirleach

To go back to something Deputy Buckley said, I cannot recall reading any reports about the European Ombudsman being involved in this-----

Senator Gerard P. Craughwell

Neither can I.

An Cathaoirleach

-----so that may be an avenue.

Are we saying we should leave the recommendation in respect of the Departments until we get the reports from both sides and engage an expert? As Deputy O'Donoghue suggested, should we have the documentation from both sides before any representatives of the Departments come before the committee? Is that agreed?

Deputy Pat Buckley

Moreover, we should write as a committee - not the poor man as an individual - to flag it up with the current European Ombudsman to say this committee has been made aware of the case and that we are now making her aware of it-----

An Cathaoirleach

We can ask whether it has ever come before the ombudsman.

Deputy Pat Buckley

We should reiterate the possibility that there are three more ships out there, that families' lives are at stake and that nobody is doing anything about it.

An Cathaoirleach

I do not know who said it earlier but it is a priority that we try to get something done and resolve this as quickly as possible because of the other three boats we know are on the seas.

Senator Gerard P. Craughwell

On that, we should directly contact the European side on this and get it to identify where those boats are and take them out of service while lives are at risk. Moreover, in preparation for what we are doing, we should write immediately to the Departments involved and ask for all the documentation they have on this case. If we allow this to go on, holes will be found and stuff will be buried, so we should write and ask for everything now. We can then compare what the family have with what we have been provided with, and if stuff is missing, we can do something about that. I would not invite in representatives of the Departments until we know.

An Cathaoirleach

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Deputy Pat Buckley

That includes flagging it with the ombudsman.

An Cathaoirleach

Yes.

Deputy Pat Buckley

I apologise to the secretariat. We have given it a ball of work.

An Cathaoirleach

P00022/2023, concerning a referral to the Supreme Court of the incitement to hatred Bill 2022 to protect free speech, is from Mr. Stephen J. Delaney. It states:

We The People of the Republic of Ireland, demand that in the event the elected President of Ireland, Michael D. Higgins, be asked by the houses of the Oireachtas to sign into law the Criminal Justice (Incitement to Violence or Hatred and Hate Offences) Bill 2022, or any other variation of such a bill, that he immediately refers this bill, under Article 26.1, to the Supreme Court due to the clear and obvious repugnancy to Article 40.6.1 of the Irish Constitution, as is expected of him as its custodian and also as he is sworn to do by the following oath, which he took on the 11th of November, 2011:

In the presence of Almighty God I do solemnly and sincerely promise and declare that I will maintain the Constitution of Ireland and uphold its laws, that I will fulfil my duties faithfully and conscientiously in accordance with the Constitution and the law, and that I will dedicate my abilities to the service and welfare of the people of Ireland. May God direct and sustain me.

The action requested by the petitioner is an appeal by the people, through a petition, to call on the President to refer the Bill to the Supreme Court. According to the petitioner, the group has protested and campaigned extensively on this issue. He states “Our attempts to debate this bill publicly have been rejected and our requests for an audience ignored by the TDs and Senators at large”.

There is updated correspondence between the petitioner and-----

Senator Gerard P. Craughwell

I might just come in on that. From a personal point of view, I might as well state my own position. I am against the notorious hate speech Bill. However, we constantly get requests in this House that, when legislation goes through, we would have the President refer it to the Supreme Court, but that is the most dangerous thing we could do. Once legislation has gone through the Supreme Court, that is it. There is no further appeal. It is a done deal and it can never again be challenged. My view is that, while I understand the petitioner's need to do everything possible to prevent the Bill getting through, we should revert to him to say it has yet to go through the Seanad, so he should lobby in the Seanad to stop it. We should advise him to do it on a personal, one-to-one basis and not to send in a copy-and-paste letter.

We will not read it. Instead, the petitioner should send in a letter addressed to Gerard Craughwell. I will read it. I have to because it is addressed to me. The petitioner should try to influence the Bill in that way instead of asking the President to send on a Bill. While the President and I do not see eye to eye on a lot of things, he has been smart enough not to refer Bills to the Supreme Court, knowing that at some stage in the future a citizen may need to challenge the Bill. The possibility of a challenge is left open by not referring it to the Supreme Court. We will also be a bit smarter and wiser on it when a Bill has had time to find its level in society. I would write back to the petitioner saying that, from our perspective, this is not an advisable thing to do. While I do not know what the Office of Parliamentary Legal Advisers, OPLA, would say in this regard, I think it would agree with me. Once it goes through the Supreme Court, it is a done deal.

Deputy Richard O'Donoghue

I agree with Senator Craughwell on this. It is something I have taken legal advice on during the week, both independent legal advice and from a lobby group. I listened to the details on this issue and the lobby group said the same thing. The worst thing that could happen is if it goes to the Supreme Court. At the moment, the Bill is in the Seanad, where amendments can be made and it can then be sent back to the Dáil. In this case, it can be redone in the Dáil and sent back to the Seanad when it is rectified. If the Seanad passes this Bill as it is at the moment, it can then be challenged in the Supreme Court. However, I would prefer if the Seanad tabled amendments to this. Like Senator Craughwell said, if the petitioner writes to every Member of the Seanad individually - the exact same letter but with the name changed on top - amendments can then be looked at by the Seanad. It can then be sent back to the Dáil and sent back again to the Seanad if it is corrected.

I will go on the record again that I am 100% against this hate speech Bill and I want to ensure the proper channels are given to whatever is needed to rectify this. I do not want it to go the Supreme Court. To me, that is the last thing needed. It can be rectified here in the Houses.

One thing I wish to clarify is that the Bill has been in the Seanad for more than 90 days.

Senator Gerard P. Craughwell

Actually, it passed the 90-day limit, as well as the 180-day limit.

Deputy Richard O'Donoghue

Right.

Senator Gerard P. Craughwell

It has passed that limit altogether. There is a misconception among the public that once it passes the 270 days, the Bill falls. I believe that the Bill passed 322 days, with effect from yesterday. However, it remains on the Order Paper in the Seanad, and as long as it is on the Order Paper, it can be debated. The only way it could fall is the way the judicial appointments Bill fell. It exceeded the 300 days but it remained on the Order Paper and was debated right up until the fall of the Government in 2020. At that time, the Bill then fell. The public need to be aware that the Bill would fall if the Dáil were dissolved, even though it would still be on the Order Paper in the Seanad. When a new Government and a new Seanad is formed, it falls to the Government to ask for that Bill to be put back on the Order Paper. It does not necessarily mean that a Bill is gone forever if a Government falls.

What Deputy O'Donoghue said makes perfect sense. Get amendments in now and take out the things that are repugnant to free speech. All of us in this room received some of the most horrendous stuff online about us, about our friends and colleagues and about politics. There are thousands of times when we are the subject of hate speech, sometimes deserved and sometimes not. At the end of the day, we cannot limit free speech. I would rather people were able to say what they wanted to say. This is the matter for the Seanad right now.

An Cathaoirleach

Does Deputy O'Donoghue wish to add anything further or is he finished?

Deputy Richard O'Donoghue

Just to clarify, and this should go back to the petitioner, the way forward is through the Seanad. Send in the letters to everyone in the Seanad. On the basis that if the Government falls, this falls with it, we have to learn from mistakes. We saw what happened with the two most recent referendums that went to the country, where the result came back with a no vote to both. We have seen that from the point of view of the Government and the NGOs, they were pushing for a yes vote in both. From the point of view of the media, they had it down that it would be 70:30 in favour of a yes vote, but the people's view was the reverse. To get this Bill right, it must be amended properly, with agreement of both Houses that it is right. If the Government falls and this Bill falls with it, it would be a foolish Government that would reintroduce it until people have independent views on it that it is done 100% right and that it will actually protect people from hate speech, while also having the common sense to include parts in the Bill so that it is not just a one-for-all, as it were, and that it protects the people who are good but also introduces the people outside that to make sure it is right. I will say it again on the record, I am 100% against this Bill as it stands. I believe the proper channel is for it to go through the Seanad and, if it is amended, to go back to the Dáil.

Deputy Pat Buckley

I agree with the previous speakers. I am on the record as being against this Bill, as it stands. It is causing so much confusion and the rumours are off the charts. While we all received emails and such, there is governmental and diplomatic procedure on this. The proper way to go on this is through the Seanad because that is where the Bill is being discussed. That is the safest way to go. We will be in dangerous territory if this is sent to the courts. No matter what House we are in, we are all legislators and it is through dialogue, discussion and proper information that an end verdict is achieved of trying to do the right thing and not doing the panicky thing and getting it wrong. Therefore, I am in agreement with the previous speakers in this regard.

Deputy Richard O'Donoghue

I wish to add one more thing, if I may. I appeal to the Seanad to listen to the voice of the people and to make sure this Bill gets the amendments and that it does go back to the Dáil, if that is the case. I make an appeal in this regard. I am appealing to the Seanad to make sure this Bill does not come in its current form.

An Cathaoirleach

Okay. The recommendation is that the correspondence from the petitioner be sent to the Department. We will continue with that. However, the committee is in agreement that we write to the petitioner and advise of what Senator Craughwell and Deputy O'Donoghue said, that the way to go with this, in our opinion, is through the Seanad where lobbying can be done and amendments submitted. It can then go from the Seanad to the Dáil and back to the Seanad again, and if people are not happy at that stage, we can go the way the petitioner is talking.

Senator Gerard P. Craughwell

For clarity, the route is that the Bill has passed the Dáil and it has come to the Seanad. If it is amended in the Seanad, it will go back to the Dáil. If those amendments are accepted in the Dáil, the Bill then passes the Houses of the Oireachtas. It does not come back to the Seanad for a second time. It goes to the President for signing.

I am not sure whether the OPLA would give wording on the dangers of going straight to the Supreme Court with a Bill once it passes the Houses of the Oireachtas. That is at the discretion of the President. In all fairness to Michael D. Higgins, he has been slow to recommend that a Bill goes to the Supreme Court. I believe the petitioner is entitled to a rationale as to why it is inadvisable to seek that a Bill goes before the Supreme Court before it has time to bed in and we see what emerges. Ultimately, I believe that if this Bill passes in its current form, somebody will be charged with hate speech and then it will finish up in the Supreme Court and maybe the European Court of Justice.

An Cathaoirleach

Okay, we will go that way. We will inform the petitioner as to what we have spoken about.

Senator Gerard P. Craughwell

I am not sure whether the OPLA would want its advice published, but at least it may give us a formula of words to use.

An Cathaoirleach

Yes, a formula of words to use with the petitioner. Is that agreed then? Agreed.

Senator Gerard P. Craughwell

I thank the Chair.

An Cathaoirleach

P00036/23 concerns the Invincibles reinterment campaign. The petitioner is Mr. Aidan Lambert. This petition relates to the National Graves Association.

It requests that the Government oblige the Office of Public Works, OPW, to carry out the necessary excavation works to recover the remains of Joseph Brady, Daniel Curley, Michael Fagan, Thomas Caffrey and Timothy Kelly, in what is commonly known as the Invincibles Yard at Kilmainham Gaol. The bodies of these five members of the Irish National Invincibles lie beneath the paving slabs of the yard. They were executed there in 1883 for their part in the Phoenix Park assassinations. The families of the five men are represented by the National Graves Association and the wish of the families is for their relatives to be exhumed from Kilmainham Gaol and reinterred in consecrated ground at Glasnevin Cemetery.

The following councils support the Invincibles Reinterment Campaign, namely Dublin City Council, Galway County Council, Westmeath County Council, Wexford County Council, Cork City Council, Tipperary County Council, Louth County Council, Sligo County Council, Cavan County Council, Carlow County Council, Clare County Council, Mid Ulster District Council, Laois County Council, Limerick City and County Council, Fingal County Council, Cork County Council, Mayo County Council, Monaghan County Council, South Dublin County Council, Derry City and Strabane District Council, Waterford County Council, Fermanagh and Omagh District Council, Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council, Kildare County Council, Donegal County Council, Kerry County Council, Meath County Council and Wicklow County Council.

As we have said in the case of a number of petitions today, this has been shoved from one State body to another, with every excuse being given in respect of it. The recommendation is: that the correspondence from the petitioner be forwarded to the Department of Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform for comment within 14 days; that the correspondence from the OPW be forwarded to the petitioner for comment within 14 days; that the correspondence from the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage be forwarded to the petitioner for comment within 14 days; and that we write to the OPW and the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage to ask with whom they have liaised on this issue; and that we invite representatives of the OPW and that Department to appear jointly before the committee.

Senator Gerard P. Craughwell

This is a really sensitive matter. For me, the site where the bodies lie today is a sanctuary. These men were executed and were buried in situ. I can understand the desire to move them elsewhere, the complexities involved, the fact that there may be other bodies there, the quicklime and everything else, but I also understand that the group has the full backing of every county council in the Republic, not to mention that of a couple in Northern Ireland as well. Kilmainham Gaol is a sacred place in the context of the establishment of the Republic in which we live today. These men gave their lives for the country in which we live. Would it not be more fitting to do something to mark their graves where they are or should they be exhumed and given State funerals? It is a case of six of one and a half-dozen of the other for me. I can see benefits in both. I really feel for the people who are trying to do this.

Whether we like it or lump it, this was the establishment of our State. It may not be the State for which they died; they died for a very different state that would have included all 32 counties. I do not know. I am very conflicted. I could not do what they did. I could not give my life.

An Cathaoirleach

I do not know whether it has ever been put to the families that they could be, as the Senator suggested, recognised at the spot where they lie rather than being exhumed. Maybe that is something we can delve into.

Deputy Pat Buckley

The group did plenty of lobbying with all the county councils in any event, in fairness to it. From my reading of it, these people have been talking to the families. This is what the families want. If everybody on one side is in agreement, we have two problems. The first is that three State organisations are supposedly responsible for making the decision as to whether the bodies can be exhumed and the second relates directly to the Minister for housing and local government, but, once again, nobody is taking responsibility for the decision. We are public representatives. We take on board the information that comes to us, but we also work for the public outside. A majority is normally the way things work in here. If every county council in the country is backing this campaign, it is a case of the old cliché whereby if 600 soldiers are marching and 599 of them are all out of step, it is everyone except my Johnny. It beggars belief. We could always mark the ground. I know the correspondence refers to the issue with the quicklime and so on, but we should stop making excuses.

An Cathaoirleach

Yes, we should make decisions.

Deputy Pat Buckley

Make a decision once and for all. We are tormenting everybody here. I cannot believe the group has that level of backing. I can see the point about the historical side of it and that Kilmainham Gaol is possibly consecrated ground now in any event, but, on the other side, if we want to complicate it even more, we could examine whether there is a possibility of a State funeral or other State recognition. Whether it is the Department of public expenditure or the OPW that is making an excuse, they have not told the Minister because they want it to go away, so all they do is overcomplicate it.

Given that we are the recipients of the petition, if we can move it forward, that is our job, just as it was in the case of the previous petition, whereby we can only do so much. We should do what we have agreed on the recommendations and wait for those responses. I take it the responses will be filled with crosswords without clues, so we will not be able to get the answer. We should then call in the representatives and ask them straight out what is so complicated about excavation.

We could go back to Stagg a long time ago, when his body was covered in concrete and they still took him out. Let us call a spade a spade. I am always a straight talker, but I cannot understand this. These people are so passionate about doing the right thing, yet the powers that be are trying to prevent them. In a democracy, whether it is the Twenty-six Counties or the Thirty-two counties, if all those county councils and everybody else is backing them, we are duty bound to back them as well.

An Cathaoirleach

To make people aware, 28 councils have passed motions giving their backing to the campaign but the campaign also has the support of 73 TDs, 14 Senators, 30 MLAs, eight MPs and 92 relatives. It has a big lobby behind it and it probably-----

Senator Gerard P. Craughwell

On the Chairman's point about the relatives, if the relatives are supportive of this, nobody should prevent it. We should be arguing as to how big a deal we make of this. It is huge in our history, and it might refocus this country in the context of where we came from.

An Cathaoirleach

Yes, but I think we need first to focus on the three State bodies. As we have said, one of them has to take responsibility instead of sending the tennis ball over and back or around in circles.

Senator Gerard P. Craughwell

It is the Minister for local government, surely.

Deputy Pat Buckley

Then the buck stops there.

An Cathaoirleach

Well, we would imagine so. We will invite in representatives of the three State bodies and try to find out as a committee which of them is going to take responsibility. As the Senator said, when 92 relatives are in favour of it, that is a strong indication it should be done. I fully agree that afterwards, once we get responsibility from one of the State bodies, decisions can then be made as to the exhumation and what way to follow on from that.

Deputy Pat Buckley

To put on record, if they are stuck with the excavation, I will do it myself. I did many of them in my previous career, believe it or not.

Senator Gerard P. Craughwell

I might add one caveat to all this. I fully understand what the campaign wants to do, and I support the relatives in particular. If the bodies are to be exhumed and moved, a fitting memorial should be erected within Kilmainham Gaol to mark the spot from which they are exhumed. Like it or lump it, this is our history. I know there will be people watching who will be saying "That Brit", but such is life.

Deputy Pat Buckley

No, it is a commonsense approach.

An Cathaoirleach

We will go with the recommendations. We will invite in representatives of the State bodies and try to get one of the three to take responsibility for this matter.

It has been going on too long. The campaign has the backing of 28 councils, TDs, Senators and so on but, as Senator Craughwell said, it also has the support of 92 of the men's relatives, and that should be the main thing.

Petition No. 2 of 2024, "Fairness for Existing Work Permit Holders: We want to stay and contribute", from Mr. Ka Wai Ho, states:

As an individual deeply affected by the recent change in the minimum salary requirement for General Employment Permits, I am seeking your support through this petition. The Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment has announced an increase to €39,000, effective from January 2025. This sudden and significant increase has left many permit holders, including myself, facing an uncertain future in Ireland.

While I understand and respect the government's need to regulate in the best interest of the nation, I am deeply concerned about the potential impact this change could have on my life and the lives of many others. We have made Ireland our home, contributing to its economic growth and societal diversity.

This petition is not in opposition to the policy change, but rather a plea for consideration for those of us who are existing permit holders. The prospect of potentially having to leave the country due to not meeting the new salary requirement is deeply unsettling.

I urge the government to consider a transition plan or a grandfather clause for existing permit holders, allowing those of us who have been contributing to Irish society to continue to do so without fear of displacement.

I kindly request your support in this matter. Your signature can help ensure that my voice, and the voices of others in my situation, are heard. Thank you for your consideration.

The recommendation is that the correspondence from the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment be forwarded to the petitioner for comment within 14 days. Do members have a view?

Deputy Pat Buckley

We will have to wait and see what the response is before we can discuss it.

An Cathaoirleach

The Department has kind of expressed a willingness to consider the petitioner's suggestion anyway, so there may be a bit of flexibility or leeway from the Department there.

Deputy Pat Buckley

Absolutely. I hope there will be a common-sense approach.

An Cathaoirleach

Negotiations are apparently ongoing between them, so there will be a common-sense approach, I hope.

Senator Gerard P. Craughwell

I agree with Deputy Buckley.

An Cathaoirleach

Is that agreed? Agreed.

That concludes our consideration of public petitions. 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.