Martin Browne (Tipperary, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We are moving away from our more usual practice of having witnesses in. There is a backlog of petitions, and we have 13 to consider today.

Our first petition is No. 21 of 2021 entitled "Taking in Charge" by Mr. Terence Coskeran. This petition relates to the request that the local authority take in charge a residential development of five houses at Rocksprings, Kilross, County Tipperary. This petition has been before the joint committee on several occasions. The updated information we have is that on 4 September, Tipperary County Council wrote to the committee to update it on progress made. In the reply, Tipperary County Council confirms it has made good progress following engagement with the relevant national stakeholders, the commitment by the Department to provide funding under the national developer provided water services infrastructure resolution programme for this estate and the understanding provided by Uisce Éireann to the council around the non-application in this instance of the national memorandum of understanding, MOU, for the taking in charge of housing developments. The infrastructure in the estate has proceeded to final inspection stage of the statutory taking in charge process. The roads section of Tipperary County Council is to advertise the final stage of the process which will give members of the public and other interested parties the opportunity to make a submission on the proposed taking in charge. Following the completion of this stage, the matter will be considered at a future plenary meeting of the council, likely to be in 2023 or early 2024.

The committee recommends that the correspondence from Tipperary County Council be sent to the petitioner for his information. The committee will write to Tipperary County Council and request that the committee be informed when the public consultation process is complete. Do members have any views on this?

Pat Buckley (Cork East, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Just to say that it is nice to see some progress being made. The issue has been ongoing for a long time. It has been very stressful. I congratulate the secretariat staff on their work. I agree with it.

Martin Browne (Tipperary, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I know the situation has gone on for a long time. We have been trying to get it moving for donkey's years. I must say that Tipperary County Council seems to have taken a real hands-on approach, as I said at the private meeting the other day, in trying to get this matter resolved. It seems to have worked. I encourage other county councils around the country to do the same in cases like this.

It is a housing estate that was built to all the proper specifications. Everybody had said that but, for some reason, Uisce Éireann or Irish Water, whatever you want to call it, was holding the whole process up. We have spoken to the man himself and he is happy that, at last, he can see light at the end of the tunnel. The recommendations are there. Are they agreed?

Eugene Murphy (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes.

Martin Browne (Tipperary, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Next is petition No. 36 of 2021, titled “Reform of Insurance for Thatched Heritage Buildings” and submitted by Katie McNelis. This petition relates to the difficulties people have in getting insurance for residential and commercial thatched properties. The petition has been before the committee on multiple occasions since October 2021. Ms Katie McNelis and the Thatched Property Insurance Action Group appeared before the committee on 29 September 2022 and the then Minister of State with responsibility for financial services, credit unions and insurance at the Department of Finance, Deputy Fleming, and the Minister of State with responsibility for heritage and electoral reform at the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage, Deputy Noonan, both appeared before the committee on 24 November 2022 with regard to this petition. Since then, the committee has corresponded on multiple occasions with the petitioner and relevant Departments.

The committee referred the petition to the European Ombudsman for comment. The ombudsman responded and confirmed that she can only deal with complaints that relate to alleged maladministration by EU institutions, organisations, bodies and agencies as regards their administrative activities and thus, as the complaint concerns the actions or inaction of the Irish State, it falls outside her mandate. However, the European Ombudsman posed a question to the Council on behalf of the committee.

The Council was asked “Does Directive 2009/138/EC (Solvency II) preclude Member States from introducing domestic legislation to require regulated insurance companies to provide cover for certain risks, notably building risk insurance for private owners of protected buildings with specific characteristics?” In the Council’s reply, it stated that insurance coverage for specific risks and for specific policyholders may require higher insurance premiums which, in some circumstances, could be considered unaffordable by the prospective policyholders. Where this is the case, it is sometimes possible for member states to take action, for instance, by adopting legal provisions protecting the general good in their territory that increase the supply of affordable insurance coverage for a given risk, thus making the insurance market work more effectively. The Solvency II directive does not rule out such interventions in the insurance market per se. For instance, Article 179 of the directive acknowledges the possibility that member states could discretionally impose obligations to take out insurance. This possibility has been used by several member states with respect to certain risks and as part of a broader set of actions that, taken together, were intended to improve the effectiveness of their national insurance market. In a similar vein, the Solvency II directive does not per se preclude member states from setting up public private partnerships or introducing provisions in national law that require authorised insurance undertakings to cover certain risks provided that no state aid rules, provisions of the Solvency II directive or provisions of the treaties and EU legislation protecting the single market for insurance are infringed.

This committee recommends that the correspondence from the European Commission be forwarded to the petitioner for comment, that the committee write to the Financial Services and Pensions Ombudsman regarding the issues raised in the petition and that the committee invite the Minister of State at the Department of Finance with special responsibility for financial services, credit unions and insurance, Deputy Carroll MacNeill, the Minister of State with responsibility for heritage and electoral reform, Deputy Noonan, Peter Boland of the Alliance for Insurance Reform and representatives of Insurance Ireland to the next public meeting to discuss the issues raised by the petition and the response from the European Commission. The proposed date for that meeting is 16 November. If there is agreement, we will ask them to attend that meeting.

This is a petition that has dragged on. Ms McNelis was in today. She is worried about a family home and pub for which she has failed to get insurance. It seems to be a problem for all buildings with thatched roofs. She has recently got a quote for €5,500, which is crazy. We have also received notification today from a man who was quoted €3,700 for insurance. When we had witnesses in on this issue, what came across was that, if we lose our thatched cottages, the only place we will see them is on the postcards we send back when we are out foreign to say "wish you were here". That would be an awful pity. We all have them in our own counties. I think of Newport in Tipperary or of Holycross village. The first thing you meet when going into the village is a row of thatched cottages. Adare in Limerick is another example. The matter has been raised in Europe by the committee and by Chris MacManus, MEP. There does not seem to be a blockage as we were led to believe last time, when it was suggested that our Government could not get involved. If there is agreement, we will ask both Ministers of State in again to tease the issue out and see if we can get some sort of movement from the Government here. Is that agreed?

Eugene Murphy (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

This is going to be hard to solve. I have an issue with this. If you are going to keep a thatched cottage as it is in the old-fashioned way, that is fine. However, there are difficulties involved in modernising houses and then putting thatched roofs on them. If we are honest, there are fire dangers involved. I do not know how we can get around or manage that but it is one of the things we are going to come up against.

Martin Browne (Tipperary, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I appreciate what Senator Murphy is saying.

Eugene Murphy (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We do not want to lose our heritage, by the way.

Martin Browne (Tipperary, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Offhand, I cannot think of the man who was in with Ms McNelis. He has done up his place. Everything has been cleared and there is no fire risk but he has failed to get insurance and so cannot draw down the second part of his mortgage to pay for his house. All the specifications have been met and everything is up to the best standard possible but he is in that situation. We need to come up with a solution so that we do not lose that part of our heritage. We will ask the two Ministers of State in and we will see whether they can fill us in on how they read the documentation we got back from Europe.

Petition No. 36 of 2022 is titled "Reopen Ennis, Nenagh and St. John's Emergency Departments” and is in the name of Ms Noeleen Moran. The petition relates to the 2009 Government decision to downgrade Ennis, Nenagh and St. John's Hospitals and to close their emergency departments. This decision directly contributed to an increase in overcrowding at University Hospital Limerick and poorer access to healthcare for those in the mid-west. Trolley watch data highlight the extent of this overcrowding. It is estimated that there is one extra death for every 82 patients admitted to an emergency department whose transfer to an inpatient bed is delayed beyond six to eight hours from the time of arrival at the emergency department. In June 2022, there were only three days on which the numbers on trolleys were lower than 82.

The up-to-date information we have is that the petitioner has raised concerns over the time taken to progress the petition and the lack of response from the Minister of Health. On foot of these concerns, the secretariat completed a full review of correspondence issued and received in respect of the petition. On completion of the review, it was identified that the Minister’s office had responded on 23 January 2023 and, due to an administrative error, this item was missed from the correspondence list for the committee.

In the Minister's response, it is stated that, in 2013, the smaller hospitals framework defined the role of smaller hospitals and the need for both smaller and larger hospitals to operate within hospital groups. The Minister states that this framework provided a stronger role for smaller hospitals like Ennis, Nenagh and St. John’s hospitals in delivering a higher volume of less complex care, in many cases, closer to patients’ homes.

On the emergency departments in Ennis and Nenagh, the response goes on to state that, in April 2009, a process of reconfiguration commenced with the closure of the 24-7 emergency departments in Ennis and Nenagh. These emergency departments were replaced with medical assessment units for GP referrals and by local injury units and urgent care centres for self-referrals. These operate 12 hours a day, seven days a week. These changes were supported by an emergency care network that had been set up in the region and which is led by consultants in emergency medicine.

This reorganisation coincided with the establishment of the motorway from Ennis and Nenagh, on which, the response states, the travel time by ambulance between hub and spoke was never more than 30 minutes. The objective of the reconfiguration was to provide safer care to patients with acute health problems while striving to make specialised services more accessible to patients in their local hospital. Ennis and Nenagh hospitals have an integral role in the future growth of healthcare in this region in the provision of ambulatory care, chronic disease management, day surgery, five-day surgery, endoscopy, local injury and medical assessment units in Ennis, Nenagh and St. John's hospitals, and much more besides.

On overcrowding in emergency departments, the correspondence states the Minister has expressed his concern about overcrowding in the emergency department in Limerick and acknowledges the distress caused to patients, their families and front-line staff working in very challenging conditions in emergency departments in UHL and throughout the country. The HSE's performance management improvement unit has been directed to lead a process, in partnership with UHL team members, supporting the hospital and community services and driving a programme of work to respond more effectively to the current pressures. This process will ensure all necessary immediate steps will be taken to address the issues identified, and a detailed plan is being developed to ensure they will not recur.

The committee recommends that the response from the Minister be forwarded to the petitioner for comment and that the committee write to the petitioner, apologise for the omission of the Minister's response and assure the petitioner that processes are in place to ensure this issue will not arise in the future. Do members have any views on that?

Eugene Murphy (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We should forward the correspondence to the petitioner and see what she reverts to us with.

Martin Browne (Tipperary, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

On behalf of the committee, I again apologise to the petitioner. It was an oversight.

Eugene Murphy (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

What happened there? It was not clear.

Martin Browne (Tipperary, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

A reply was sought from the Minister. The Senator will recall we asked for one on a couple of occasions and we thought it was not coming, but what seems to have happened is there was an error in the petition's reference number stated in the email's subject line. It was just an oversight and the correspondence was missed.

Eugene Murphy (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The petitioner did not get a copy of the reply from the Minister. Is that correct?

Martin Browne (Tipperary, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

She did not get it until recently. A review was carried out by the secretariat-----

Eugene Murphy (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The reply was there but it did not go to the petitioner.

Martin Browne (Tipperary, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes. To be fair to the secretariat, we were in correspondence with-----

Eugene Murphy (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am not blaming anybody.

Martin Browne (Tipperary, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

-----the Minister's office and let it know the petitioner had responded. We have a slot on 18 November, for which no meeting has been scheduled, but I propose we invite in the petitioner on 9 November.

Eugene Murphy (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Should we not wait for the reply?

Martin Browne (Tipperary, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The petitioner has the reply at this stage.

Eugene Murphy (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We are waiting, however, for a response from the petitioner. Would it not be better to wait for her to reply and then set that date?

Martin Browne (Tipperary, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is debatable. The next available date after that is 23 November, which is getting up on top of Christmas. It is up to the committee. The petition has been before us for a while.

Eugene Murphy (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thought the recommendation was to forward the correspondence to the petitioner and await a reply. Now we are saying we are going to bring in the petitioner on 9 November.

Martin Browne (Tipperary, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We have had correspondence over and back with the petitioner, just not in respect of that one reply. There has been continuous correspondence with the petitioner over the past 12 months. To be fair, the petitioner has been patient. I do not mind. We can leave it.

Eugene Murphy (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

No, it is fine. I just thought that at yesterday's private session, we agreed something else, but now we have added a plan for 9 November. Perhaps I missed that yesterday and we did agree on 9 November.

Martin Browne (Tipperary, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I do not think we came to any agreement on what we were going to do. We said we would discuss it today.

Eugene Murphy (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We are now saying we are going to bring in the petitioner on 9 November.

Martin Browne (Tipperary, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is up to the committee. I am just saying we have an available date if we want to bring in the petitioner on 9 November.

Eugene Murphy (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It does not matter to me.

Pat Buckley (Cork East, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am happy enough with it.

Martin Browne (Tipperary, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is the committee happy to bring in the petitioner on that date?

Eugene Murphy (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will not object.

Martin Browne (Tipperary, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

If the petitioner has responded to us by next week, we will invite her in for 9 November. We will wait to get the reply and then we will see what we will do.

Eugene Murphy (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is fair enough. That was all I wanted.

Martin Browne (Tipperary, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

No. P00036/2023, entitled "Failure of the 2005 Disability Act in providing a provision of services to children in need of disability services particularly in Cavan/Monaghan", is from Mr. Ronan Whitmarch. The petition relates to the lack of staffing of the children's disability network team, CDNT, and primary care; the impact on children, parents and families due to long waiting lists; and the failure of the system to provide for, recognise or protect children with disabilities due to no wording on the provision of same in the Act and no international protection given that the optional protocol of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, CRPD, has not been ratified. The education of children with additional needs is failing in Cavan-Monaghan due to several issues, and the lack of respite services needs to be highlighted.

The case manager wrote to the Department of Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth, which laid out its response in four key areas. First, on the provision of children's disability services, the Department indicated it is aware of calls from a variety of family representative groups and other stakeholders to review the Act. It stated it is focusing on practical steps to increase the number of personnel on the ground available to deliver vital therapies to children with disabilities and to secure additional resources for early intervention instead of changing the legislation.

Second, on respite, the Department indicated that community healthcare Cavan, Donegal, Leitrim, Monaghan and Sligo, CHCDLMS, disability services have made a submission to national HSE estates for capital funding to build a residential respite service for children in County Monaghan. A decision was expected to be indicated in September of this year. Alternative respite for children on CDNT caseloads is currently in place throughout Cavan and Monaghan in the form of day respite and support contracted by the HSE from Kilbixy, Galro and Little Wonder services. The CHCDLMS disability services support children on CDNT caseloads to avail of this respite in order to meet the demands of the service, having regard to the funding available and the competing demands for same.

Third, on primary care and the Department of Health, the correspondence from the Department indicated that Cavan-Monaghan primary care, CMPC, services are aware of the legislative timeframe of the assessment of need process and the Disability Act framework on which it is based. It states that all children should receive an assessment of need under the Act, with a legislative framework of six months from when requested, and maintains that the services adhere to the assessment of need frameworks to the best of their ability. Two issues, however, are impacting on this objective. The Cavan-Monaghan area is not consistently meeting this legislative framework due to insufficient capacity within the services. To try to manage the volume of CMPC assessment of needs referrals and meet the legislative requirements to meet the assessment of needs timelines, the CMPC services prioritise assessment of needs referrals above all other referrals, albeit with an impact on all other children referred. All assessment of need referrals are prioritised by the Cavan-Monaghan primary care team at weekly intake meetings. There are significant challenges relating to the recruitment of staff for children's primary care services.

Fourth, on the ratification of the optional protocol of the UNCRPD, the Department explains that the protocol is an international treaty that establishes two procedures aimed at strengthening the implementation and monitoring of the convention. The Department of Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth is working to scope out the requirements for earlier ratification. This scoping work is required due to the long-standing position of the State on honouring international agreements. As a matter of foreign policy, Ireland does not enter into binding international treaties until it is confident the obligations set out can be complied with.

The committee recommends that the correspondence from that Department be forwarded to the petitioner for comment within 14 days and that the committee write to the Ombudsman for Children enclosing details of the petition and the response from the Department. Do members have any views?

Pat Buckley (Cork East, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I agree with the recommendations but I will be very interested in the petitioner's response. The petition mentioned the Disability Act two or three times but it also mentioned the optional protocol.

We had a chance in 2018, when we ratified most of the UNCRPD, to ratify the optional protocol but did not do so. The excuse from the HSE is weak. It is saying that it cannot provide the service based on the fact that we did not ratify the optional protocol. Only for that, the HSE would be hammered in the High Court for not providing the services.

We have seen it already and I suspect it is happening everywhere. The assessment of need process for children is a major problem and has been for a number of years. I sat on the Joint Committee on Autism and that was one of the biggest issues raised.

Regarding the response in those four paragraphs, it is disingenuous of the HSE to say that it is not its fault but is the fault of the Legislature because we have not ratified the optional protocol. Will somebody take responsibility here, step up to the plate and provide the service that is supposed to be there?

Martin Browne (Tipperary, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The assessment of need process, the amount of time it is taking for children to get an assessment and the staffing of the CDNTs are issues that everyone in this House has been contacted about on a regular basis. It is a disgrace that children with needs are being failed. Even if they get an assessment fairly quickly, it is just a box-ticking exercise as far as I am concerned. They are being left for months on end without services but someone is able to say, at a higher level, that their needs were met, that the box was ticked.

We are talking specifically about County Monaghan. It would be worthwhile finding out what stage the respite building is at and getting information on the waiting list for respite services in that area. Is it agreed that we seek that information from the HSE?

Pat Buckley (Cork East, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes, that would make sense. At least then we would be able to ascertain the level of demand.

Martin Browne (Tipperary, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We will ask HSE estates to give us that information.

Pat Buckley (Cork East, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I suspect there are two waiting lists. There is the original waiting list and then there is a waiting list to get on that waiting list.

Martin Browne (Tipperary, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I would imagine so. We will write to the HSE and seek that information. Once we get that correspondence from the HSE, we will consider what to do next. The recommendation thus far is that the correspondence from the Department of Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth be forwarded to the petitioner for comment and that the committee writes to the Ombudsman for Children enclosing the details of the petition and seeks a response from same. Is that agreed?

Pat Buckley (Cork East, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes.

Martin Browne (Tipperary, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Next is No. P00008/23 in which the petitioner, Mr. Declan Brosnan, calls for legal netting of an endangered species, namely, Atlantic salmon, in Castlemaine Harbour to be stopped. Castlemaine Harbour is classed as a special area of conservation, SAC, where salmon are an actual quantifying interest. The petitioner maintains that the number of salmon returning is at an all-time low and adequate data are not provided by the fish counter on the River Maine.

The secretariat has received a reply from the inland fisheries division of the Department of the Environment, Climate and Communications giving a detailed response to the questions raised by the petitioner. Among the questions raised in 2019, the petitioner asked if Inland Fisheries Ireland, IFI, could explain how the number of spring salmon and grilse could be exact. In its response, the IFI notedthat as the counter was not operational during certain periods in March and April 2019, counts from the average of corresponding months in the previous five years was used. For May, the figure of 378 was inflated by 29% to account for this down time. For August, the figure was not updated as the period was short and unknown and escapement was low. For September, the escapement figure of 34 was inflated by 13% to account for this. It should be noted that the Maine is assessed as a single stock, that is, the grilse and spring salmon components are not considered separately for the stock assessment and the associated provision of scientific catch advice.

The petitioner asked IFI to explain how the number of grilse was so high and number of sea trout was so low in 2020. IFI responded that the number of grilse and sea trout reported to the technical expert group on salmon, TEGOS, for 2020 was based on the data recorded through the counter. On a precautionary basis these data are provided to TEGOS with an "unverified" status, given the conditions affecting the counter in terms of background noise and so on. Notwithstanding this, every effort is made locally to verify the accuracy of the counts by way of CCTV review to separate sea trout from salmon.

The petitioner also asked why verified video evidence has not been used in any year since the fishery reopened. The response was that the counter data from the River Maine provided annually to TEGOS for stock assessment and catch advice were classified as "verified" until 2017 when the status was changed to "unverified" due to concerns in relation to the background noise affecting the counter. This was done on a precautionary basis. As per above, the data are verified locally for accuracy. However, data are reported as unverified to TEGOS so that the group is aware of the conditions pertaining to the counter.

Regarding recommendations from the committee, the secretariat advises that the correspondence from the inland fisheries division of the Department of the Environment, Climate and Communications be forwarded to the petitioner for comment within 14 days and that the committee writes to the clerk to the Joint Committee on Environment and Climate Action to determine whether the issues raised by the petitioner fall under the remit of that committee. The petition will be considered again once the relevant response have been received and the petitioner has been notified of same. Is that agreed?

Pat Buckley (Cork East, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Agreed

Martin Browne (Tipperary, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Next is No. P00022/23, requesting a referral to the Supreme Court of the Criminal Justice (Incitement to Violence or Hatred and Hate Offences) Bill 2022. The petitioner, Mr. Stephen J. Delaney asks that the President of Ireland, Mr. Michael D. Higgins, when asked by the Houses of the Oireachtas to sign into law the aforementioned Bill or any variation of same, would immediately refer it to the Supreme Court under Article 26.1. The petitioner alleges that alleges that this is due to clear and obvious repugnancy to Article 40.6.1° of the Irish Constitution.

The case manager wrote to the Department of Justice on this. In its reply, the Department states that under Articles 20 to 27 of Bunreacht na hÉireann, all new legislation is proposed in the Oireachtas and both Houses must consider it and can amend it before it is passed. This process of proposal, consideration and amendment by elected representatives is how the will of the people is expressed in legislation. Bunreacht na hÉireann sets out what happens to legislation after it has been passed by both Houses of the Oireachtas. In light of the constitutional separation of powers and the independence of the Office of the President, it is not appropriate for the Department to comment on the matter raised in the petition. The Secretary General would like to assure the petitioner that the Office of the Attorney General was closely consulted throughout the legislative development of the Criminal Justice (Incitement to Violence or Hatred and Hate Offences) Bill 2022 to ensure the draft provisions are fully compliant with Irish law. Bunreacht na hÉireann is the fundamental basis for the Irish legal system and no difficulties were highlighted with respect to the constitutionality of the Bill.

The committee recommends that the correspondence from the Department be forwarded to the petitioner for reply within 14 days. Is that agreed?

Pat Buckley (Cork East, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Agreed.

Martin Browne (Tipperary, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Next is No. P00024/23 from Mr. Alexander-Marckus Edwards which relates to electric scooter safety standards and requirements. The petitioner refers to a recent press release stating that powered personal transportation, PPT, or electric scooters should conform to a weight limit, including battery, of 25 kg and a power limit of 500 W. The petitioner alleges that these limitations will make electric scooters considerably more dangerous. The lack of weight in the deck paired with a low-power motor will turn the front wheel into a fulcrum, which in turn will result in people hitting the roadway face first. Furthermore, the loss of safety features like lights, suspension, and wider tyres will occur to maintain a weight requirement of 25 kg. Technical safety features like ballasting circuits, overcharge protection and tracking technology can make scooters more unsafe. The requirement to maintain 500 W or less will make it nearly impossible to get up a hill. The weight requirement will also cause the likes of Bolt, Uber and Free Now to have to use older scooters, which in turn will increase safety risks.

The petitioner believes it is in the best interests of the Government to open a public debate and consult people from the e-scooter community regarding safety, speed, power and weight requirements for electric scooters and to take recommendations based on experience into consideration.

The case manager wrote to the Department of Transport and received a detailed reply which referenced the new Road Traffic and Roads Act 2023. The Act creates a new category of vehicle, namely, personal powered transporters, PPTs. It allows the Minister for Transport to regulate the use of PPTs and for technical specifications. Only e-scooters meeting the use and technical conditions in the Act and subsequent regulations will be legalised. The parameters, which include maximum continuous rated power output of up to 500 W, maximum net weight of 25 kg, inclusive of battery, and maximum design speed of up to 25 km/h, are not specific to e-scooters but apply to all PPTs. Only vehicles below these thresholds will be classed as PPTs. Vehicles exceeding the thresholds will continue to be illegal to use in public places.

As regards e-scooters regulations technical standards, e-scooters will not be legal for use on public roads until regulations for their construction, equipment and use are in place. The Department has prepared new regulations and changes to existing regulations to introduce e-scooters draft road traffic (electric scooter) regulations 2023, which will provide for: a maximum continuous rated power output of 400 W or less; a maximum net weight of 25 kg, batteries inclusive; a maximum design speed of 20 km/h or less; wheels with a minimum diameter of 200 mm; front and rear lights and reflectors; brakes and a bell; and a manufacturer’s plate certifying the power output, weight and design speed. The draft regulations have been notified to the European Commission for review under the mandatory technical regulations information system to ensure they comply with Single Market rules under EU Directive No. 2015/1535 before coming into effect. Other regulatory requirements are that the minimum user age on public roads will be 16, only single person use will be allowed and the use of e-scooters will not be permitted on motorways, footpaths or pedestrian areas. Accordingly, the power to mount kerbs will not be required.

The committee recommends that the correspondence from the Department of Transport be sent to the petitioner for comment within 14 days. Do members wish to comment? Is that agreed?

Pat Buckley (Cork East, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is agreed. The response is substantial.

Martin Browne (Tipperary, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Petition No. 26 of 2023, submitted by Ms Áine Daly, calls for equal opportunity for HSE counselling positions. The petition relates to the exclusion of National Association for Professional Counselling and Psychotherapy, NAPCP, members from the eligibility criteria for counselling positions within the HSE. The NAPCP is one of several independent regulatory bodies for counselling and psychotherapy. It comprises members at every level of the counselling profession, namely, student, pre-accredited, accredited and supervisor. Despite robust accreditation requirements comparable with those of other regulatory bodies, with requirements for level 7 qualification and 450 hours' clinical practice, the NAPCP is currently excluded from consideration for counselling positions with the HSE. This continues despite overwhelming evidence that Ireland is facing a mental health crisis as those in need remain on extensive waiting lists for vital supports. The NAPCP is calling on elected representatives to lobby the HSE to give full consideration to NAPCP members, thus drawing from a wider pool of highly skilled, qualified mental health professionals.

The case manager corresponded with the HSE. In its reply, the HSE stated CORU is Ireland's multi-profession health regulator, whose role is to protect the public by promoting high standards of professional conduct, education, training and competence through statutory registration of health and social care professionals. The HSE further stated that clinicians registered with the NAPCP are not typically employed by the HSE or eligible for roles in HSE mental health services. Individuals employed by the HSE in services for people experiencing mental health problems tend to come from disciplines that have statutory recognition and regulation or are in the process of achieving same. The HSE response concluded by advising it may be productive for the NAPCP executive to engage with the counselling and psychotherapy registration board of CORU, if this is not already occurring.

The committee recommends that the correspondence from the HSE be forwarded to the petitioner for comment within 14 days. Pending the response from the petitioner, further action, if any, will then be decided by the committee. Do members wish to comment?

Pat Buckley (Cork East, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I agree the correspondence from the HSE should be forwarded to the petitioner for comment. Is there a second recommendation?

Martin Browne (Tipperary, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

No. The recommendation is that the correspondence from the HSE be forwarded to the petitioner for comment within 14 days. Pending the response from the petitioner, further action, if any, will then be decided by the committee.

Pat Buckley (Cork East, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is perfect. Agreed.

Eugene Murphy (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is fine.

Martin Browne (Tipperary, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Petition No. 27 of 2023, entitled "Who will guard the guards themselves?", is from Ciaran McMahon. The petition relates to the Criminal Justice (Incitement to Violence or Hatred and Hate Offences) Bill 2022 and its potential to quell opposition on topical issues such as climate change, gender and so on. The petitioner suggests that a solution for modern hate could be banning social media for under-18s, ID requirements for social media platforms and stand-your-ground protections.

The case manager wrote to the Department of Justice and received a response. In its response, the Department states that, through the Bill, it is keen to deliver the best possible legislation to protect vulnerable and minority communities and to assure them the horrendous crimes perpetrated against them because of who they are will not be tolerated. The Department assures the petitioner that all provisions have been carefully developed to ensure it is balanced, victim centred and effective in securing convictions where serious crimes are committed. The Department states this new legislation does not make it an offence to hold or express opinions or views that others may find offensive or shocking, regardless of the nature of those views. Under the new provisions, it will be an offence only when those views are used to incite violence or hatred against another person or group.

The committee recommends the correspondence from the Department of Justice be forwarded to the petitioner for information. Do members have any views? Is that agreed? Agreed.

Next is petition No. 28 of 2023, which calls for the improvement of the atypical working scheme, AWS, permits application process. The petition asks for the removal of the obstacles overseas nurses face as a result of unreasonable delays and the questionably high rejection rate of the AWS application process. Migrant Nurses Ireland, MNI, an organisation representing migrant nurses, is extremely concerned by the current state of affairs. These issues are causing severe difficulties for the nurses in question and are profoundly impacting their employment and, in many cases, ability to support themselves and their families. The nurses were asked to resign from their existing jobs in order to accept potential employment in Ireland by Irish healthcare employers and recruitment agencies. Furthermore, the group received information that the atypical working scheme unit has increased the timeframe for AWS application from 20 days to more than 30 working days and this decision has affected the applicants even more. The delay in processing AWS applications has significantly impacted other elements of the nursing registration process for applicants.

The case manager wrote to the Department of Justice. In its reply, the Department states, among other matters, that the atypical working scheme is designed to accommodate the arrival of non-EEA nationals to fill short-term labour gaps for the benefit of the economy. In recognition of the importance of front-line medical personnel, the AWS unit prioritises these applications. There has been unprecedented demand for AWS permissions this year, with a significant increase in the number of applications for healthcare workers. The number of applications received in the first six months of 2023 is 5,376. This represents an increase of 65% on the number of applications received in the same period in 2022.

Pat Buckley (Cork East, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That's agreed.

Eugene Murphy (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We have difficulties in this area and we need to work with it. The money is available for carers at the moment and we do not have the carers, so it is really important that the Department gets its act together on that and smooths it out as quickly as possible.

Martin Browne (Tipperary, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Senator Murphy is getting widespread agreement on that. Something needs to happen fast. We are told on a daily basis that we are short of people in professions. This is a situation where things seem to be delayed for no apparent reason.

Pat Buckley (Cork East, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Five thousand is a large figure.

Martin Browne (Tipperary, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The next petition is No. 30 of 2023 for the creation of a walking and cycling greenway on the closed railway from Sligo to Athenry from Mr. Brendan Quinn. I see Mr. Quinn and Mr. John Mulligan, campaigner for the greenway, in the Public Gallery. I welcome them to the proceedings.

This petition relates to the closed railway line from Collooney, County Sligo to Athenry, County Galway. The line has been closed for more than four decades and is lying in waste. People along the route in small towns and villages in the west of Ireland want to see something happen. The petition has garnered slightly more than 26,000 signatures. The petitioner refers to the success that greenways on old railway lines can achieve and that a new facility reinventing the closed railway line will bring civic pride to these towns and villages, creating a public space to enjoy. The petitioner is calling on the Minister for Transport to act now to put this route that has lain redundant for more than 40 years to good use as a greenway in the interests of local communities and in the interests of our tourism industry until it might be possible to have a railway along the route. The petitioner also asks that, in the event the railway is ever restored, that a greenway be incorporated to run alongside any restored railway lines.

The case manager wrote to the Department of Transport. In the reply it was noted that the closed railway line was part of the All-Island Strategic Rail Review commissioned in 2021, which was undertaken in cooperation with the Department for Infrastructure in Northern Ireland. The report recommends the reinstatement of the rail line from Athenry, County Galway to Claremorris, County Mayo. While reinstatement of the line from Athenry to Claremorris does not necessarily prevent development of a greenway along this section of rail corridor, the feasibility of a greenway beside the rail line would need to be assessed with key stakeholders. Development of a greenway between Charlestown and Collooney is underway with Sligo greenway, from Collooney to Bellaghy, at the early stages of planning. Transport Infrastructure Ireland, TII, has responsibility for funding, planning and designing greenways.

The committee recommends the correspondence from the Department of Transport be sent to the petitioner for comment within 14 days. Do members have any views?

Eugene Murphy (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am quite familiar with this subject. It is close to my area. A lot of work goes on with greenways and people fighting to get railway lines restored. It is important to listen to these people. I wish a good afternoon to the gentlemen who are present. We should indicate to them that we would be prepared to let them make their case before the committee in the not too distant future. Greenways are being linked up in the area. There are always two sides to these arguments. We should not dismiss one or the other. It is important to allow these people to make their case if they are willing to do so. We should give them that opportunity.

Ciarán Cannon (Galway East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Mr. Brendan Quinn who has done Trojan work in assembling this petition of 26,000 signatures, 9,000 of which emanate from my county of Galway, and Mr. John Mulligan who is another stalwart campaigner for common sense and for the reinstatement of a vital piece of public infrastructure connecting Athenry to Sligo. It has lain idle for 40 years, bringing no benefit whatsoever to the communities it should and could serve. I respectfully ask the committee that an absolute priority be afforded to this petition. I do not know what the bar is for a petitioner to be heard before the petitions committee or how many signatures one needs. Certainly, I suspect few petitions of 26,000 signatures come before the committee. We have a huge groundswell of public support in the western region for this to happen. What we are asking for is straightforward. It is not complicated. It is that until a rail service is reinstated on that line, bearing in mind that the All-Island Rail Review only recommends a rail service for the section from Athenry to Claremorris, the route be developed as a greenway. It would bring immediate economic and well-being benefits to the people who live along the line from Athenry to Sligo. It makes absolute sense to create a greenway there in the interim.

The All Island Rail Review has no timeline or budget and a recent report prepared for the Cabinet identified a €13 billion hole in our current national development plan, which sets out our transport infrastructure investment priorities between now and 2040. There is no mention of the western rail corridor anywhere in that plan and it has a €13 billion deficit before we even start. Logic and common sense suggest that this piece of publicly-owned infrastructure could be brought back into use for the benefit of the people who live along the route. That is why 26,000 people committed their names to supporting the petition. To them it makes sense to do this now. I thank the members of the committee for facilitating me to be here today and respectfully ask that this petition be afforded the maximum priority.

Eugene Murphy (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We have no objection to letting them come before the committee; none whatsoever.

Martin Browne (Tipperary, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Before we decide, we must hear from Senator Lombard, Deputy Buckley and Deputy Griffin who is online. To be clear, there is a process to go through and when we get to that stage I recommend we send an invitation to the petitioners to put their case to the committee so that we can hear the concerns of the 26,000 signatories. As members will be aware, we would also then invite the Minister to hear the Government's case. There is no problem with inviting the petitioners to present their case.

Tim Lombard (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Chair for bringing clarity to the issue. It is important we hear from the petitioners. It is a significant petition of 26,000 signatures. It is the biggest we will ever get at this level of the committee. The topic was well aired by the previous speaker who has good knowledge of what is happening on the ground. We have seen the success of greenway projects throughout the country. In our part of the world, as Deputy Buckley will be aware, in Waterford, it has been a fantastic success. I spent many days with my family there in the summer. It provides a wonderful opportunity for everyone to get out and be active. There are huge economic, social, physical and mental benefits to having a greenway. The petition, which received the support of 26,000 people, needs to be heard. The Chair's contribution that we need the petitioners to be brought before us is warranted. That is an important part of this committee's work.

Pat Buckley (Cork East, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We went through a lot of amendments when we set up the memorandum of understanding for this committee. I was passionate that this is possibly the only committee left in the Oireachtas that is lastchance.com. This is where we give people outside the Houses their voice. Everyone is entitled to have an opinion, to be heard and it is a decent way of debating and thrashing out the issues. There is no problem. This is what it is about. The number of 26,000 is substantial. It is a lot of people, it involves a lot of paper that weighs a lot. We have to be realistic. The speakers laid it out earlier. It would bring immediate benefits. As with anything in tourism, if you invest, you get your investment fourfold back at a minimum. It will bring positivity and well-being, allow people to get out in the air and exercise and tourism will see the monetary value of it.

Let it be of use now. I cannot believe it has been lying idle for 40 years when it could be used. Even if the local farmers got together and cut and levelled it, at least you could walk it. I have read the all-Ireland rail review and have looked at stuff down my way. Senator Lombard said that we are near completion of the Midleton-Youghal greenway. Even though many people wanted the railway down there as well, we had to be realistic given development charges. It is cost-neutral to put in a railway line. It is a win-win. We should make use of what we have. We do not get out enough. Covid taught us that we need to make the best of what we have and plan for the future so I am totally in agreement.

Martin Browne (Tipperary, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Other Members of the Oireachtas have views on it as well. We need to be careful that we give everybody an opportunity to discuss it and that nobody comes out of this meeting more or less saying the committee has come down on one side or the other. This is the first time this petition has come before us. We will try to get it in as quickly as we can so we can get the petitioners back in.

Brendan Griffin (Kerry, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I acknowledge the effort that went into bringing in 26,000 signatures. This was a massive effort that must be acknowledged. This issue warrants further scrutiny by the committee and warrants further discussion. That will be important. I would like to see a feasibility report on the logistical possibilities of developing a greenway without encroaching on the future potential of rail. I would be conscious of the fact that if a greenway was put down and the option in the future was to replace it rather than keep it in place alongside rail, it would cause a big problem. There is a case to be made for both a rail corridor if not along the entirety of this corridor then for parts of it and the greenway. I would like to see more information on whether the two can be done together in that corridor - maybe not at the same time but one could be done and not encroach on the other depending on the order in which they are built. I do not think we should wait for the outcome of the rail review for that to happen so this committee should perhaps approach the relevant authorities with a view to establishing the facts in terms of what is possible logistically.

Martin Browne (Tipperary, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I was going to bring that up myself. We have seen from the Department's response that there are a few factors here to be dealt with when consideration is being given to the petition and how the reinstatement of rail services fits into the overall strategic rail review and how a greenway could safely function alongside a functioning railway line. Once the petition comes in, I am quite sure the two gentlemen or whoever represents them at that stage can put our minds at ease. For the benefit of people watching, one signature is sufficient to get a petition in front of us. It is not like other petitions where you need a couple of hundred or thousand signatures. As Deputy Buckley said, it is the one opportunity for members of the public to have their voices heard in front of the committee and on the floor of the Dáil.

Ciarán Cannon (Galway East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have additional information to bring to the conversation. So far, the Department of Transport has invested €375,000 in a feasibility, planning and design study. Consultants have been recruited to carry out the feasibility, planning and design study on the section of the greenway from Athenry to Milltown so there is already significant investment on the part of the Department of Transport to determine the possibility of putting a greenway on that section between Athenry and Milltown and, ultimately and hopefully, all the way to Claremorris and onwards bearing in mind the fact that Sligo County Council is many steps ahead here in terms of developing its section and that this rail line has lain idle for 40 years and will connect east Galway all the way up to beautiful Sligo and onwards to Enniskillen in a cross-Border initiative that is already substantially underway. An incredible opportunity will present itself in the next three to five years to develop something really impactful.

Obviously all of us who have the west of Ireland's interests at heart would dearly love to see an enhancement of our rail services all along the western rail corridor but I do not see that happening for at least the next 15 to 20 years. I want to be able to walk away from Leinster House and say I worked with people like Mr. Quinn and Mr. Mulligan and the many others who have been campaigning for this for a very long time to deliver something that has changed substantially and enhanced the lives of people who live along that rail line and who drive, walk and cycle by it every day looking in over the fence at weeds growing on it. It is just shameful.

Martin Browne (Tipperary, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

As I said, this is the first time this has come before us. We have given an assurance to the petitioners that at a later date we will bring them in and try to get the answers to the questions asked by me and Deputy Griffin. Other people with possibly different views can come before us and give their views.

Ciarán Cannon (Galway East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Exactly.

Martin Browne (Tipperary, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

If there is agreement, I propose that we fix-----

Eugene Murphy (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Deputy Griffin made a crucial point. We cannot wait around. We cannot wait for things to happen with regard to the rail line. Mr. Quinn and Mr. Mulligan are not against railway development. One of them worked alongside the other. You could get this work up and running very quickly but if you are going to wait for reports on what is going to happen with the railway lines, you are right-----

Martin Browne (Tipperary, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I know-----

Eugene Murphy (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is the point Deputy Griffin was making.

Martin Browne (Tipperary, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We still need to get the Department's views.

Eugene Murphy (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I accept that.

Martin Browne (Tipperary, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I agree with Deputy Griffin. This committee needs to get that information before it starts making decisions. If there is agreement, we will write to the Department to try to get that information and try to fix a date in the near future to invite the petitioners to appear before us and lay out their case. Is that agreed? Agreed.

The next petition is P00034/23 to request that the Irish State supports Catalan and-or the Basque language being made an official EU language from Carlos Pujol. The petition is requesting that the Irish State reacts supportively to any request from France or Spain seeking that the Catalan and-or the Basque language be made an official EU language noting that both countries in 2007 supported Ireland's successful request to confer official EU language on the Irish language.

The petition case manager wrote to the Department of Foreign Affairs and in its reply, the Department noted that the EU member states were informed on 18 August 2023 of the decision of the Spanish Government to request the modification of Regulation No. 1 "determining the languages to be used by the European Economic Community" to include Catalan, Basque and Galician. Ireland will support discussion on this matter at Council should Spain proceed with the proposal. It is too early at this stage for Ireland to take a definitive position on the Spanish Government's proposal in the absence of detail and before a formal presentation.

The updated note we have from the Council of the European Union states that the Council discussed a request by Spain to include Catalan, Basque and Galician in Regulation No. 1/1958, which governs the EU’s language regime, at its meeting on 19 September. The request was notified to the Council presidency on 17 August 2023 in a letter by Spain’s Minister for Foreign Affairs, the European Union and Cooperation.

Currently, the use of Catalan, Basque and Galician is governed by administrative arrangements between Spain and individual EU institutions and advisory bodies. The Council had a constructive exchange and decided to continue working on the request by Spain to amend Regulation No 1. The General Affairs Council will remain seized of the matter.

The committee recommends that the correspondence from the Department of Foreign Affairs be sent to the petitioner and based on the response from the Department of Foreign Affairs that the petition be deemed closed. Do members have views on that or is that agreed?

Martin Browne (Tipperary, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The final petition is No. P00035/23. It is to stop the Government's proposal to cull 200,000 cows and it is from Alfie Hollingsworth. This petition concerns the culling of 200,000 cows to combat climate change and meet their climate deadlines of reducing agriculture emissions by 25% by 2030. The petitioner feels this is a bad, and at the very least unnecessary, idea. The petitioner proposes a number of alternative solutions, including an emphasis on more sustainable farming practices and financial assistance to support the move to more sustainable farming. The case manager wrote to the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine. In its reply, it notes that there is currently no Government proposal to cull cows. Significant work has been undertaken by the Department and the wider agriculture sector on how the 25% reduction in emissions will be achieved by 2030.

The Minister established the Food Vision 2030 dairy and beef and sheep groups in 2022. Their priority was to chart a pathway to achieving the 25% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2030 by 5.75 MT of carbon dioxide. Both the beef and sheep and dairy groups submitted final reports at the end of 2022. A key recommendation of the Food Vision 2030 dairy group was to explore and take forward a voluntary reduction scheme for the dairy herd which is being explored further by the Department. It states there will be significant engagement with stakeholders over the coming months on the parameters of the scheme. The Minister stated recently that no decision has been taken by the Government to proceed with such a scheme. No farmer will be forced to reduce livestock numbers as part of the climate action plan process. The Minister also stated that, owing to the serious concerns expressed by the farming organisations on the proposals for voluntary reduction schemes related to the suckler herd, they are now off the table for the beef sector. The committee recommends that the correspondence from the Department be forwarded to the petitioner for comment, and that the petition and correspondence received be referred to the Joint Committee on Agriculture, Food and the Marine. Do Members have any views? No. Is that agreed?

Tim Lombard (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

To tell the honest to God's truth, I am not that happy with the response from the Department. Under the nitrates regulation that has been proposed and the review of the nitrates action plan we will potentially go down from 250 kg/ha to 220 kg/ha in the red areas. That will effectively mean a reduction in the herd, which was not mentioned in the response. Those figures need to be clarified. I propose that we go back to the Department and ask for clarification on what it believes will be the reduction in the national herd because of the reduction in nitrates from 250 kg/ha to 220 kg/ha based on the map. That would give us an indication of what is going to happen. That is not a voluntary reduction, it is mandatory.

Martin Browne (Tipperary, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is why the recommendation is to send the petition to the Joint Committee on Agriculture, Food and the Marine. It is probably more suited to that committee.

Tim Lombard (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

As Vice Chair of that committee, I do not have an issue with that.

Eugene Murphy (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Nobody wants that. I acknowledge where Senator Lombard is coming from, given that he is from a big dairy area. When a previous Minister, Deputy Coveney, rightly lifted the cap, many dairy herds expanded massively. I know this. I used to work down in Cork. I know a lot of the dairy farmers. We have to be careful. I agree with Senator Lombard that we have challenges. I am not going to deny that. However, there is no plan. I certainly would not be supportive of culling cows. I think the majority of the Irish people, whether they are in farming or not, do not want to see that happen. By all means, I would go along with what Senator Lombard says because I would welcome more answers and more clarification.

Martin Browne (Tipperary, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Like I said, if we have agreement we will send the petition to the Joint Committee on Agriculture, Food and the Marine. It is probably more suited to it than to this committee.

Eugene Murphy (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Absolutely.

Martin Browne (Tipperary, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We will forward it to the Joint Committee on Agriculture, Food and the Marine.

That concludes our consideration of public petitions this afternoon. I would like to 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. To return to what we said earlier for anybody looking in, one signature can get a petition in front of the committee. It is not the case that a person has to get 26,000 signatures. It may help to get it up the ladder a bit quicker. To be fair to the clerk and the secretariat, the amount of work they do in respect of all the petitions received must be recognised. No preference is given to any one petition over another.

The next matter on the agenda is any other business. We have a petition, P00023/21, on unauthorised developments, which is in the name of Michael Barrett. We are seeking agreement that the committee would write to all county councils to request details of the approval process for developments on waterways, including jetties and marinas. The committee would also like to request that the councils provide the committee with the number of both authorised and unauthorised developments that have been identified and where an unauthorised development is identified, that they would outline what processes are in place to respond to these developments. Does anybody have any views on that?

Pat Buckley (Cork East, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

This has been going on for a long time. I remember one time when we discussed it I said I would write to my own council. I have put the question to it and I mentioned authorised and unauthorised developments on its section of Waterways Ireland waterways. In fairness to Cork County Council, it came back very fast in response to authorised developments but there was supposed to be another section for unauthorised developments and, unfortunately, I have not received a response. I even checked this week again. It is a matter of concern. Cork people do not just talk to people in Cork; we talk to people all over the country. The figures I am getting suggest that there could be anywhere up to 400 unauthorised developments affecting Waterways Ireland entities. We are looking at this matter for two years and we are getting zero responses back. I do not think that is very fair to us as a committee. I agree with you, Chair, that we need to get the responses here because this is public money. It is an all-Ireland body and we are getting no responses.

Martin Browne (Tipperary, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I agree. By the looks of it, these developments are going on. As Deputy Buckley says, this is public money, but the waterways also belong to the public. We do not have any proof and that is why we are asking if it is okay for the secretariat to write to the councils. Each council can come back to us and say what is going on in each county.

Pat Buckley (Cork East, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Let us see what is going on.

Martin Browne (Tipperary, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Would the committee be happy with that? Right. We will do that so and we will come back to the issue at a later date.