Committee on Public Petitions debate -
Wednesday, 7 Mar 2018

Decisions on Public Petitions Received

Chairman

The first petition for consideration is Petition No. P00038/17, from Mr. Paddy Lambe, entitled "Bureaucracy and the Public Services Card". It is vital that the person who applies for and passes the driving theory test is the same person who sits the subsequent practical driving test. A person's identity is established to a substantial level of assurance through the standard authentication framework environment, SAFE, registration process, which results in the issuing of a public services card, PSC. The Department accepts that this requires effort from citizens but asserts that this is a once-in-a-lifetime process. It is proposed to forward a copy of the response from the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform to the petitioner and to close the petition. Is that agreed? Agreed.

The next petition for consideration is Petition No. P0048/17, from Mrs. Anna McKenna, entitled "Drogheda City Status". It seeks city status for the town of Drogheda. The committee agrees to keep the petition open pending the publication by the Government of its report on potential measures to boost local government leadership and accountability. We are proposing to put a six-month horizon on this petition. I seek the agreement of members on this proposal. Perhaps members would like to say a few words about the petition before we make a final determination on it.

Deputy Shane Cassells

I accept the Chair's ruling, which will keep the discussion open. Some of the issues that surround the petition have been pointed out. In my capacity as Fianna Fáil's spokesperson on local government, I met Mrs. McKenna and seven other members of the Drogheda city status group last week to hear their petition, which seeks to have Drogheda recognised with city status. The methodology being used by the group to indicate the merit of its proposal includes Dr. Brian Hughes's statistical analysis of the region. I do not accept the Department's response that this proposed designation, in removing a substantial amount of territory, population and resources from County Louth, would have implications for the viability of the county. Quite frankly, the status of Drogheda as a stand-alone entity has been recognised in statute for hundreds of years. In the context of this State, it had borough status for 100 years under the Local Government Act 1898. This means that for most of the lifetime of this State, specific resources were distributed towards the benefit of the people of Drogheda. In the same way, the people of my home town of Navan had their own council for 100 years. This was denied to them when the town council network was abolished in 2014 as part of the butchery of the system of local democracy.

Senator Jerry Buttimer

That is harsh language.

Deputy Shane Cassells

I could be harsher. I am being a diplomat today. It has been recommended that this committee should wait for the Department of Housing, Planning and Local Government's upcoming report on local government structures. Quite frankly, that report will not go far enough to address the deficiencies that exist. Having tabled parliamentary questions on this matter - indeed, I have tackled the Taoiseach on it - it is clear to me that statutory planning and budgetary powers will not be restored to the five old borough councils that existed. The potential exists for three new boroughs, including my home town of Navan, to come under the auspices of this plan because they exceed the threshold of 30,000 people. The current arrangements are unacceptable because an authority that does not have statutory budgetary and planning powers is not an efficient local forum for the people it represents. More worryingly, I understand the Department's upcoming report will consider whether the new directly elected mayor for Dublin should have executive powers over parts of counties Meath, Wicklow and Kildare. As I said clearly to the Taoiseach last week, under no circumstances will any directly elected mayor ever get executive control over parts of County Meath.

As I have said to the members of the Drogheda city status group, the petition before the committee, which is based on the premise that population statistics should be used, is flawed because it includes residents and citizens of County Meath in coastal areas like Laytown, Bettystown and Mornington. I have advised them not to take parts of another county to form part of their petition in order to attain the end result they want. I support the people of Drogheda in calling for stronger local government. It is a town I know well because it is close to my home town of Navan. I have worked in that town for the Drogheda Independent group. It is a great town that deserves strong local government, but not at the expense of the annexation of coastal areas of County Meath in order to strengthen the argument. On that basis, I believe the petition is flawed. The people of Drogheda should make their case in their own right without resorting to taking coastal areas of County Meath. The case for Drogheda is strong enough in its own right. I would support the call being made by the Drogheda city status group if it were based purely on the town of Drogheda. However, I cannot support it as long as it is bumping up Drogheda's numbers by taking parts of County Meath.

Chairman

No other members are offering. We have essentially agreed that we will keep the petition open and put a horizon of approximately six months on it, pending the publication of the Government's report. I want to pay due respect to what Deputy Cassells has said about the issues relating to the jurisdiction of County Meath. When petitions come before us, it is important in the first instance that they come before us in the correct and appropriate manner.

We are keeping this petition open because the committee feels that the petitioners have the right to be heard. I agree with Deputy Cassells that from a territorial perspective if the petition seeks to traverse a border for which it has no mandate then one could argue on the basis of common sense and practicality that it would be very easy to close the petition. The committee has given due consideration and this is the reason we are keeping it open and also in deference to the Members of the Oireachtas who are representatives of Louth, who have spoken on this issue.

The committee proposes to forward a copy of the correspondence we have received on this issue from the Department of Housing, Planning and Local Government to all Members of the Oireachtas, Senators and Deputies, for the Louth and Meath constituencies, so they will all be furnished with a copy. I thank the committee members for agreement on this issue.

The next petition received for consideration is Petition No. P0001/18. It is proposed to forward to a copy of the response from the Department of Communications, Climate Action and Environment to the petitioner informing him of the Private Members' Bill on waste reduction and to close the petition. Is that agreed? Agreed.

I shall now turn to Petition No. P00040/17 regarding Respreeza. I understand that the petitioner has withdrawn the petition. The committee respects her right to withdraw the petition but we acknowledge that we received the petition and gave it some consideration. This petition will be withdrawn. Is that agreed? Agreed.

The joint committee adjourned at 2.25 p.m. until 1.30 p.m. on Wednesday, 21 March 2018.