Tithe an Oireachtais
An Comhchoiste um Achainíocha ón bPobal Tuarascáil ón gCoiste
um Athbhreithniú ar na Téarmaí Tagartha
Houses of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Public Petitions
Report of the Committee on the
Review of the Terms of Reference
A leagadh faoi bhráid dhá Theach an Oireachtais 31 Marta 2021
Laid before both Houses of the Oireachtas 31 March 2021
JCPP/33/01
Tithe an Oireachtais
An Comhchoiste um Achainíocha ón bPobal Tuarascáil ón gCoiste um Athbhreithniú ar na Téarmaí Tagartha
Houses of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Public Petitions
Report of the Committee on the
Review of the Terms of Reference
A leagadh faoi bhráid dhá Theach an Oireachtais 31 Marta 2021
Laid before both Houses of the Oireachtas 31 March 2021
JCPP/33/01
© Houses of the Oireachtas 2021
Joint Committee on Public Petitions – Review of the Terms of Reference
Table of Contents Foreword ...... 5
1. Summary ...... 7
2. Recommendations ...... 9
2.1. SO 125 (1) Name of Committee ...... 9
2.2. SO 125 (4)(c) Power to send for persons, papers and records...... 9
2.3. SO 125 (6) European Ombudsman ...... 9
2.4. SO 127 (1)(d) Admissibility: name of individual ...... 9
2.5. SO 128 (2) (c) Debate in plenary session ...... 9
3. Background ...... 11
3.1. Motions of Instruction re Terms of Reference ...... 11
3.2. Definition of a Petition ...... 11
3.3. Parliamentary Petitions Systems ...... 11
3.4. Functions of the Joint Committee on Public Petitions 33rd Dáil ...... 11
3.5. Review of the Orders of Reference ...... 12
4. Review of SO 125 Joint Committee on Public Petitions ...... 13
4.1. SO 125 (1) and 94 (2) (c) Joint Committee on Public Petitions ...... 13
4.2. SO 125 (2) “Own initiative inquiries” ...... 15
4.3. SO 125 (3) Membership...... 16
4.4. SO 125 (4) Powers of the Committee ...... 17
4.5. SO 125 (5) Substitution and committee meetings ...... 18
4.6. SO 125 (6) EU Parliament Petitions Committee ...... 19
4.7. SO 125 (7) Committee of Public Accounts ...... 20
4.8. SO 125 (8) Work Programme ...... 21
5. Review of SO 126 Lodging of petitions...... 22
5.1. SO 126 (1) (public concern or interest, or public policy) ...... 22
5.2. SO 126 (2) (who may lodge a petition) ...... 23
Joint Committee on Public Petitions – Review of the Terms of Reference
5.3. SO 126 (3) (Name and Address) ...... 24
5.4. SO 126 (4) (All petitions referred to the committee) ...... 25
5.5. SO 126 (5) (Form and manner of petitions) ...... 26
6. Review of SO 127 Admissibility of petitions ...... 27
6.1. SO 127 (1) Admissibility of petitions ...... 27
6.1.1. SO 127 (1) (a) (Power of the Houses) ...... 27
6.1.2. SO 127 (1) (b) (proper form) ...... 28
6.1.3. SO 127 (1) (c) and SO 69 (sub judice) ...... 29
6.1.4. SO 127 (1) (d) (name of individual) ...... 31
6.1.5. SO 127 (1) (e) (defamatory language) ...... 32
6.1.6. SO 127 (1) (f) (similar petitions) ...... 33
6.1.7. SO 127 (1) (g) (an abuse of the petitions system) ...... 34
6.1.8. SO 127 (1) (h) (a decision by an Ombudsman) ...... 35
6.2. SO 127 (2) (Local or Regional matters) ...... 36
6.3. SO 127 (3) (in a case of dispute the committee shall decide) ...... 37
7. Review of SO 128 Actions in relation to petitions ...... 38
7.1. SO 128 (1) (such action as it considers appropriate) ...... 38
7.2. SO 128 (2) (other actions) ...... 39
7.3. SO 128 (3) (notify the petitioner) ...... 41
8. Review of SO 129 Closing of Petitions ...... 42
8.1. SO 129 (1) (closing a petition) ...... 42
8.2. SO 129 (2) (notify the petitioner) ...... 42
9. Review of SO 130 Consideration of Ombudsman report ...... 43
10. Review of SO 96 Powers of Select Committees (July 2020) (SSO 72) .... 45
2
Joint Committee on Public Petitions – Review of the Terms of Reference
Appendix A: Library & Research Service Briefing Paper: Policy and the Public Interest ...... 49
Abstract ...... 49
Legal Disclaimer ...... 49
1. Introduction ...... 50
2. Context for the paper ...... 51
2.1. Background and functions ...... 51
2.2. How the Committee differs from other Oireachtas Committees ...... 52
2.3. Origins of the petitions system in the Houses of the Oireachtas ...... 52
2.4. Petition committees in parliamentary settings ...... 55
3. What constitutes “policy” and “public concern or interest” ...... 58
3.1. Public concern or interest ...... 58
3.2. Political science ...... 58
3.3. Environment ...... 61
3.4. Law ...... 61
3.5. Planning ...... 63
3.6. Journalism ...... 64
3.7. Privacy and freedom of information ...... 65
3.8. Miscellaneous uses of the concepts ...... 66
3.9. Discussion ...... 67
4. What is policy? ...... 69
4.1. Public policy...... 70
4.2. Discussion ...... 75
5. Potential applications for consideration by the Committee ...... 77
Appendix B: Submission from the Irish Ombudsman Forum ...... 79
Appendix C: Submission from Mr. David Lowe ...... 87
Appendix D: Submission from the Scottish Parliament ...... 95
3
Joint Committee on Public Petitions – Review of the Terms of Reference
Appendix E: Submission from the Legislative Council of Western Australia .....103
Appendix F: Flowchart of the Oireachtas Public Petitions Process ...... 109
Appendix G: Oireachtas Public Petitions Ecosystem ...... 111
Appendix H: Orders of Reference ...... 113
125. Joint Committee on Public Petitions...... 113
126. Lodging of petitions...... 115
127. Admissibility of petitions...... 116
128. Actions in relation to petitions...... 117
129. Closing of petitions...... 117
130. Consideration of Ombudsman report...... 117
96. Powers of Select Committees...... 118
Appendix I: Membership of the Joint Committee on Public Petitions ...... 121
4
Joint Committee on Public Petitions – Review of the Terms of Reference
Foreword
The purpose of the parliamentary public petitions system in Ireland is to allow members of the public to raise issues of general public interest or concern or issues of public policy with the Houses of the Oireachtas. The members of the Joint Committee on Public
Petitions view this as an important platform, that allows all of Ireland’s citizens to actively engage with the parliament. The petitions system provides direct access to this
Committee so that the voice of the people can be heard.
The Joint Committee on Public Petitions was given the important task by the Houses of the Oireachtas, to review its terms of reference on 22 September 2020.
The members of the Committee welcomed the opportunity to conduct this review as it felt that the Joint Committee on Public Petitions could be a more robust and effective forum, which could be used to promote greater public engagement with the parliament.
The Committee met under very different circumstances over the course of its review, due to the Covid-19 pandemic. We had to quickly embrace meeting in a virtual manner which was done in order to ensure that social distancing guidelines were adhered to and for the safety of the Parliamentary Community.
After months of meeting privately because of the Covid-19 restrictions, the Committee was finally able to hold its first virtual public meeting1 involving witnesses. The
Committee met with representatives from the Irish Ombudsman Forum, Ms Justice Mary
Ellen Ring, Chair of the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission, and Mr. Peter Tyndall,
Ombudsman and found this to be a very useful and worthwhile engagement.
I would like to thank the a number of people who made submissions to the Committee:
Ms Lynn Russell, Clerk to the Public Petitions Committee of the Scottish Parliament; Mr.
Nigel Pratt, Clerk of the Legislative Council of Western Australia; Mr David Lowe, the
1 https://www.oireachtas.ie/en/debates/debate/committee_on_public_petitions/2021-03-09/2/
5
Joint Committee on Public Petitions – Review of the Terms of Reference
former Head of the Petitions Committee secretariat, who appeared at the previous
Committee in 2011 and assisted us again in 2021.
I would like to express my gratitude to Mr. Niall Watters of the Library and Research
Service, who wrote a briefing paper for the Committee on “Policy and the Public
Interest”, which we have included in this report.
I would also like to thank Mr. David O’Neill BL and Mr. Stephen Fitzpatrick BL from the
Office of Parliamentary Legal Advisers, and Ms Jennifer McGrath, Data Protection Officer who provided advice to the Committee.
I would also like to thank the Clerk Mr. Leo Bollins, and the Committee’s secretariat Ms
Susan Moran, Ms Barbara Hughes and Ms Margaret O’Donnell, who provided support to the Committee during the course of the preparation of this report.
The Joint Committee requests that this report be debated in the Dáil and Seanad.
______
Martin Browne TD
Chair
Joint Committee on Public Petitions
31 March 2021
6
Joint Committee on Public Petitions – Review of the Terms of Reference
1. Summary
The Committee recognises that the role of parliamentary petitions committees is a very active area of research in parliaments around the world, and also in the academic political science community.
The Committee also recognises that there are many players in the petition’s ecosystem. The Committee intends to continue to consult other bodies, and to encourage memoranda of understanding between the Committee and other bodies such as Ombudsmen, departmental select committees, regulatory public bodies, Government departments etc.
Each standing order is also reviewed later in this report, and all the salient standing orders are included in Appendix H. The orders of reference, the Oireachtas Public Petitions Process and the Oireachtas Public Petitions Ecosystem are included in the appendices F and G.
The Committee believes that there is sufficient scope with the existing standing orders coupled with memoranda of agreement with other bodies to improve the effectiveness of the petitions system.
The Committee intends to keep its terms of reference under review, in the light of international best practice, academic research, and further consultations with other bodies.
However, the Committee is recommending amendments to a number of standing orders which are outlined below.
7
Joint Committee on Public Petitions – Review of the Terms of Reference
8
Joint Committee on Public Petitions – Review of the Terms of Reference
2. Recommendations
Having considered the standing orders, and reviewed the submissions and advice provided, the Committee is recommending the following changes to standing orders. These recommendations are discussed with the relevant standing orders in the report.
2.1. SO 125 (1) Name of Committee
The Committee recommends that the name of the Committee be changed to include the Ombudsman.
Replace
“Joint Committee on Public Petitions”
by
“Joint Committee on Public Petitions and the Ombudsmen.”
2.2. SO 125 (4)(c) Power to send for persons, papers and records.
The Committee recommends that the following amendment be made:
Insert new clause
125(4)(c) “Power to send for persons, papers and records.“
2.3. SO 125 (6) European Ombudsman The Committee recommends the following amendments to this standing order.
Insert:
“the European Ombudsman and international ombudsman offices” 2.4. SO 127 (1)(d) Admissibility: name of individual
The Committee recommends the deletion of SO 127 (1)(d).
Delete subclause:
127 (1)(d) “contains the name or names of individuals.”
2.5. SO 128 (2) (c) Debate in plenary session
The Committee recommends the insertion of the text to provide for three debates in plenary session per annum.
Insert:
“The Dáil shall consider three such reports in plenary session per annum.”
Similarly, for the Seanad.
9
Joint Committee on Public Petitions – Review of the Terms of Reference
10
Joint Committee on Public Petitions – Review of the Terms of Reference
3. Background
3.1. Motions of Instruction re Terms of Reference
The Dáil and Seanad passed this motion of instruction (as amended):
“That the Joint Committee on Public Petitions be instructed to review its Terms of Reference as set out in Standing Orders and to lay a report before both Houses of the Oireachtas by 31 March 2021.”
This report outlines the review of the Committee’s Orders of Reference in light of the motions of instruction from the Dáil and Seanad that the Committee shall review its terms of reference.
3.2. Definition of a Petition
This is a useful definition quoted in the literature.
A petition is
“A formal written request or application made to one vested with authority, or to a legislative or administrative body, soliciting a favor, grant, right, or act of mercy ... .”
(Collier’s New Encyclopaedia, 1921)
3.3. Parliamentary Petitions Systems
The Scottish parliament created a petitions system in 1999, and their example was followed by many other parliaments including the Houses of the Oireachtas, which established the first petitions committee in 2012.
Over 80% of European and Westminster style parliaments have a parliamentary petitions system.
Characteristics of Parliamentary Petitions Systems include:
• The only facility which gives people direct access to parliament (using an informal process), enhancing the legitimacy of the political system • Petitioners have a right to a reply • Petitions can act as a “safety valve” or a “fire alarm” or as a policy review mechanism.
3.4. Functions of the Joint Committee on Public Petitions 33rd Dáil
The main functions of the Committee are set out in standing orders 125 and 130 and may be summarised as follows:
11
Joint Committee on Public Petitions – Review of the Terms of Reference
a) Consideration of Public Petitions; b) Own Initiative Inquiries; c) Other Matters; d) Consideration of Reports of Ombudsmen.
3.5. Review of the Orders of Reference
Each of the salient standing orders is reviewed below.
This includes the standing orders specific to the Joint Committee (standing orders 125 – 130), standing order 96 (Powers of Select Committees), and other relevant standing orders.
The relationship of the Committee with the Offices of the Ombudsmen is also considered.
The consolidated version of Dáil Standing Orders 27 January 2021 is used for ease of reference.2
Dáil Standing Orders are referred to throughout this report, where is a substantive difference, Seanad Standing Orders may also be referred to.
2 This document is a consolidated version of all of the Standing Orders of Dáil Éireann currently in effect, as of 27th January 2021. It incorporates the Standing Orders of the 2020 edition, along with any modifications made in the 33rd Dáil (whether sessional or permanent). This consolidation has been produced for ease of reference and is not an official edition of Standing Orders. Any subsequent modifications agreed may be added or incorporated into this document at the discretion of the Journal Office. https://data.oireachtas.ie/ie/oireachtas/parliamentaryBusiness/standingOrders/dail/2021/2021-01- 27_consolidated-dail-eireann-standing-orders-january-2021_en.pdf
12
Joint Committee on Public Petitions – Review of the Terms of Reference
4. Review of SO 125 Joint Committee on Public Petitions
4.1. SO 125 (1) and 94 (2) (c) Joint Committee on Public Petitions
The text of the standing order 125 (1) is below.
SO 125 Joint Committee on Public Petitions
1) There shall stand established, following the reassembly of the Dáil subsequent to a General Election, a Standing Committee, which shall be joined with a similar Committee of Seanad Éireann, to form the Joint Committee on Public Petitions, to consider—
a) public petitions addressed to the Houses of the Oireachtas which shall stand referred to the Committee in accordance with Standing Orders 126 to 129, inclusive;
b) such other matters as may be referred to the Committee by the Houses of the Oireachtas; and
c) any other related matters.
SO 94. Scope and Context of Activities of Select Committees.
(2) It shall be an instruction to each Select Committee that—
c) it shall not consider any matter which is being considered, or of which notice has been given of a proposal to consider, by the Joint Committee on Public Petitions in the exercise of its functions under Standing Order 125(1)26;
13
Joint Committee on Public Petitions – Review of the Terms of Reference
4.1.1. Description
Standing order 125 (1) (taken together with the equivalent Seanad standing order) provides that that the standing Joint Committee on Public Petitions shall stand established following general elections to both Houses of the Oireachtas.
As a standing committee the Joint Committee on Public Petitions is a permanent committee like the Committee of Public Accounts.
The Committee shall consider the following:
a) Public petitions addressed to the Houses of the Oireachtas stand referred to the Committee; b) such other matters as may be referred to the Committee by the Houses of the Oireachtas; and c) any other related matters.
Standing order 94 (2) (c) says that a sectoral committee shall not consider any matter which is being considered, or of which notice has been given of a proposal to consider, by the Joint Committee on Public Petitions.
4.1.2. Views of the Committee
The Committee thinks that the Ombudsmen should be mentioned in the title of the Committee, reflecting the importance of the oversight role of the Committee in relation to the Offices of the Ombudsmen.
Otherwise, the Committee has considered this standing order, and related standing order 94(2)(c), and is satisfied that with the text of the standing order as it stands.
4.1.3. Recommendation
SO 125 (1)
The Committee recommends that the name of the Committee be changed to include the Ombudsman.
Replace
“Joint Committee on Public Petitions”
by
“Joint Committee on Public Petitions and the Ombudsmen.”
14
Joint Committee on Public Petitions – Review of the Terms of Reference
4.2. SO 125 (2) “Own initiative inquiries”
The text of the standing order 125 (2) is below.
SO 125 Joint Committee on Public Petitions (SO 125) (2)
2) The Committee may also consider a matter of general public concern or interest in relation to the legislative powers of the Houses of the Oireachtas or an issue of public policy: Provided that prior to the commencement of such consideration, the Chairman of the Joint Committee shall consult with the relevant Committee established pursuant to Standing Order 95.3
4.2.1. Description
Standing Order 125 (2) was added to the orders of reference at the request of the Committee (in 2016) so that the Committee could carry out its “own initiative” inquiries.
Such inquiries would mean consideration of “a matter of general public concern or interest in relation to the legislative powers of the Houses of the Oireachtas or an issue of public policy.”
Matters of public concern or interest and issues of public policy are similar to what may be considered as a petition (SO 126 (1)), are discussed later in this report.
The Committee must first consult the relevant sectoral committee before such consideration.
4.2.2. Views of the Committee
The Committee thinks that consultation with the relevant sectoral committee is probably useful in keeping the sectoral committee informed of the intentions of the Petitions Committee.
The Committee has considered this standing order and is satisfied that with the text of the standing order.
4.2.3. Recommendations
The Committee is not recommending any amendments to this standing order.
3 Functions of Departmental Select Committees.
15
Joint Committee on Public Petitions – Review of the Terms of Reference
4.3. SO 125 (3) Membership
The text of the standing order 125 (3) is below.
SO 125 Joint Committee on Public Petitions
3) The Standing Committee shall consist of seven members of Dáil Éireann. The quorum of the Joint Committee shall be four, of whom at least one shall be a member of Dáil Éireann and one a member of Seanad Éireann. The Chairman of the Joint Committee shall be a member of Dáil Éireann.
4.3.1. Description
The Committee shall consist of seven members of Dáil Éireann and four members of Seanad Éireann.
4.3.2. Views of the Committee
The Committee has considered this standing order and is satisfied that with the text of the standing order.
4.3.3. Recommendations
The Committee is not recommending any amendments to this standing order.
16
Joint Committee on Public Petitions – Review of the Terms of Reference
4.4. SO 125 (4) Powers of the Committee
The text of the standing order 125 (4) is below.
SO 125 (4) Joint Committee on Public Petitions
4) The Joint Committee shall have the following powers:
a) the powers defined in Standing Order 96, other than paragraphs (3), (6), (7), (10) and (11) thereof;4 and
b) power to refer any matter which has been considered by it (and which has been concluded to be of sufficient importance to require additional consideration) to the relevant Joint Committee appointed under Standing Order 955 for further consideration and report back to the Committee.
4.4.1. Description
The Committee shall have the powers in standing order 96 other than paragraphs (4), (6), (7) thereof, and the power to refer any matter to the relevant Joint Committee.
4.4.2. Views of the Committee
The Committee is of the view that it would be appropriate that the power to send for persons, papers and records should be restored to the Committee. The Committee notes that other standing committees have this power included in their orders of reference (the Committee of Public Accounts, the Committee on Budgetary Oversight and the Standing Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills).
Otherwise, the Committee has considered this standing order and is satisfied that with the text of the standing order.
4.4.3. Recommendations
The Committee recommends that the following amendment be made:
Insert new clause
125(4)(c) “Power to send for persons, papers and records.”
4 This Standing Order in the 27 January 2021 consolidated version of the Standing Orders of Dáil Éireann, should read “other than paragraphs (4), (6), (7) thereof”; 5 Functions of Departmental Select Committees.
17
Joint Committee on Public Petitions – Review of the Terms of Reference
4.5. SO 125 (5) Substitution and committee meetings
The text of the standing order 125 (5) is below.
SO 125 Joint Committee on Public Petitions
5) The provisions of Standing Order 106,6 other than paragraph (1) thereof, shall apply to the Joint Committee. 4.5.1. Description
Members may substitute at meetings.
4.5.2. Views of the Committee
The Committee has considered this standing order and is satisfied that with the text of the standing order.
4.5.3. Recommendations
The Committee is not recommending any amendments to this standing order.
6 Ex Officio Membership of, Substitution in, and Attendance at Select Committees.
18
Joint Committee on Public Petitions – Review of the Terms of Reference
4.6. SO 125 (6) EU Parliament Petitions Committee
The text of the standing order 125 (6) is below.
SO 125 (6) Joint Committee on Public Petitions
6) The Joint Committee may engage with the Committee on Petitions of the European Parliament7 including in relation to the European Citizens’ Initiative.8
4.6.1. Description
The Joint Committee may engage with the Committee on Petitions of the European Parliament.
4.6.2. Views of the Committee
The Committee is of the view that the Committee should engage with international ombudsmen, including the European Ombudsman.
Otherwise the Committee has considered this standing order and is satisfied that with the text of the standing order.
4.6.3. Recommendation
SO 125 (6)
The Committee is recommending the following amendments to this standing order:
Insert:
“the European Ombudsman and international ombudsman offices.”
7 European parliament Committee on Petitions (PETI) Web site: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/committees/en/peti/about Petitions portal: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/petitions/en/home 8 https://www.europarl.europa.eu/at-your-service/en/be-heard/citizen-s-initiative
19
Joint Committee on Public Petitions – Review of the Terms of Reference
4.7. SO 125 (7) Committee of Public Accounts
The text of the standing order 125 (7) is below.
SO 125 (7) Joint Committee on Public Petitions
7) It shall be an instruction to the Joint Committee that it shall not consider any matter which is being considered, or of which notice has been given of a proposal to consider, by the Committee of Public Accounts in the exercise of its functions under Standing Order 2189 and/or the Comptroller and Auditor General (Amendment) Act 1993,10
4.7.1. Description
The Committee shall not consider any matter which is being considered, or of which notice has been given of a proposal to consider, by the Committee of Public Accounts.
4.7.2. Views of the Committee
The Committee has considered this standing order and is satisfied that with the text of the standing order.
4.7.3. Recommendations
The Committee is not recommending any amendments to this standing order.
9 Committee of Public Accounts. 10 http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1993/act/8/enacted/en/html
20
Joint Committee on Public Petitions – Review of the Terms of Reference
4.8. SO 125 (8) Work Programme
The text of the standing order 125 (7) is below.
SO 125 (8) Joint Committee on Public Petitions
8) The Joint Committee shall prepare an annual work programme and an annual report as outlined in Standing Order 100,11 which shall be laid before both Houses of the Oireachtas.
4.8.1. Description
The Joint Committee shall prepare an annual work programme and an annual report.
4.8.2. Views of the Committee
The Committee has considered this standing order and is satisfied that with the text of the standing order.
4.8.3. Suggested amendments
The Committee is not recommending any amendments to this standing order.
11 Printing and Publication of Select Committee Reports, Work Programmes and Annual Reports of Select Committees.
21
Joint Committee on Public Petitions – Review of the Terms of Reference
5. Review of SO 126 Lodging of petitions.
5.1. SO 126 (1) (public concern or interest, or public policy)
The text of SO 126 (1) is below.
SO 126 Lodging of petitions. (1)
1) A petition may be addressed to the Houses of the Oireachtas on a matter of general public concern or interest in relation to their legislative powers or an issue of public policy.
5.1.1. Description
This standing order says that the Committee may consider a petition “on a matter of general public concern or interest in relation to their legislative powers or an issue of public policy.”
Public Concern or interest and public policy are covered later in this report.
5.1.2. Views of the Committee
The Committee noted the report from the Library and Research Service on “general public concern or interest in relation to their legislative powers or an issue of public policy” (see Appendix A).
The Committee has considered this standing order and is satisfied that with the text of the standing order as it stands.
5.1.3. Recommendations
The Committee is not recommending any amendments to this standing order.
22
Joint Committee on Public Petitions – Review of the Terms of Reference
5.2. SO 126 (2) (who may lodge a petition)
The text of SO 126 (2) is below.
SO 126 Lodging of petitions. (2)
2) A petition may be lodged by an individual person, a body corporate or an unincorporated association of persons.
5.2.1. Description
This standing order permits anybody to submit a petition be they
a) by an individual person b) a body corporate c) or an unincorporated association of persons.
5.2.2. Views of the Committee
The Committee has considered this standing order and is satisfied that with the text of the standing order as it stands.
The Committee notes that there are no restrictions on who may lodge a petition, which is in keeping with best practice.
5.2.3. Recommendations
The Committee is not recommending any amendments to this standing order.
23
Joint Committee on Public Petitions – Review of the Terms of Reference
5.3. SO 126 (3) (Name and Address)
The text of SO 126 (3) is below.
SO 126 Lodging of petitions. (3)
3) A petition shall clearly indicate— a) the name of the petitioner; b) an address of the petitioner to which all communications concerning the petition should be sent; and c) the name and address of any person supporting the petition.
5.3.1. Description
This standing order requires the name and address of the petitioner and any person supporting the petition.
5.3.2. Views of the Committee
The Committee has considered this standing order and is satisfied that with the text of the standing order as it stands.
The Committee notes that some parliaments require a large number of signatures before a petition is considered.
The Committee is of the view that one person supporting a petition is sufficient.
The Committee is not inclined to publish the names of persons supporting petitions unless explicit consent to do so has been obtained by the petitioner.
5.3.3. Recommendations
The Committee is not recommending any amendments to this standing order.
24
Joint Committee on Public Petitions – Review of the Terms of Reference
5.4. SO 126 (4) (All petitions referred to the Committee)
The text of SO 126 (4) is below.
SO 126 Lodging of petitions. (4)
4) All petitions addressed to the Houses of the Oireachtas shall stand referred to the Joint Committee on Public Petitions (referred to in this Standing Order and Standing Orders 127, 128 and 129 as “the Committee.”)
5.4.1. Description
This standing order provides that all petitions addressed to the Houses of the Oireachtas shall stand referred to the Joint Committee on Public Petitions.
This is similar to SO 125 (1).
5.4.2. Views of the Committee
The Committee has considered this standing order and is satisfied that with the text of the standing order as it stands.
5.4.3. Recommendations
The Committee is not recommending any amendments to this standing order.
25
Joint Committee on Public Petitions – Review of the Terms of Reference
5.5. SO 126 (5) (Form and manner of petitions)
The text of SO 126 (5) is below.
SO 126 Lodging of petitions. (5)
5) The Committee shall, from time to time, determine— a) the proper form of petitions; b) the manner in which petitions are to be lodged with the Houses; c) and such other matters in relation to the consideration of petitions as the Committee considers appropriate and which are not otherwise provided for in these Standing Orders.
5.5.1. Description
This standing order enables the Committee to set the proper form of petitions, the manner in which petitions are submitted, and other matters not otherwise provided for in standing order.
5.5.2. Views of the Committee
The Committee has considered this standing order and is satisfied with the text of the standing order as it stands.
5.5.3. Recommendations
The Committee is not recommending any amendments to this standing order.
26
Joint Committee on Public Petitions – Review of the Terms of Reference
6. Review of SO 127 Admissibility of petitions
This standing order gives a presumption that a petition is admissible unless one of more of a number of conditions apply.
Case law in the European parliament suggests that if there is any doubt, a petition must be ruled admissible. The courts have overruled the petitions committee on a number of occasions where the committee felt that a petition was inadmissible.
On the other hand, whether a petition is closed or not is a political decision, and the courts would not have any role in reviewing that decision.
The grounds for ruling a petition inadmissible are examined in turn.
6.1. SO 127 (1) Admissibility of petitions
Each of the sub clauses is examined in turn.
6.1.1. SO 127 (1) (a) (Power of the Houses)
SO 127 Admissibility of petitions. (1) (a)
1) A petition is admissible unless it—
a) requests the Dáil to do anything other than the Dáil has power to do;
6.1.1.1. Description
This standing order gives the Committee a very wide latitude excluding a request to do anything other than the Dáil has power to do.
6.1.1.2. Views of the Committee
The Committee has considered this standing order and is satisfied with the text of the standing order as it stands.
6.1.1.3. Recommendations
The Committee is not recommending any amendments to this standing order.
27
Joint Committee on Public Petitions – Review of the Terms of Reference
6.1.2. SO 127 (1) (b) (proper form)
SO 127 Admissibility of petitions. (1) (b)
1) A petition is admissible unless it—
b) does not comply with Standing Orders or is otherwise not in proper form;
6.1.2.1. Description
This standing order gives the Committee to rule petitions which do not comply with standing orders or not in proper form to be inadmissible.
6.1.2.2. Views of the Committee
The Committee has considered this standing order and is satisfied with the text of the standing order as it stands.
6.1.2.3. Suggested amendments
The Committee is not recommending any amendments to this standing order.
28
Joint Committee on Public Petitions – Review of the Terms of Reference
6.1.3. SO 127 (1) (c) and SO 69 (sub judice)
SO 127 Admissibility of petitions. (1) (c)
1) A petition is admissible unless it—
c) is sub judice within the meaning of Standing Order 69;
SO 69 Debate: matters sub judice.
Subject always to the right of Dáil Éireann to legislate on any matter (and any guidelines which may be drawn up by the Committee on Parliamentary Privileges and Oversight from time to time), and unless otherwise precluded under Standing Orders, a member shall not be prevented from raising in the Dáil any matter of general public importance, even where court proceedings have been initiated: Provided that—
1) the matter raised shall be clearly related to public policy;
2) a matter may not be raised where it relates to a case where notice has been served and which is to be heard before a jury or is then being heard before a jury;
3) a matter shall not be raised in such an overt manner so that it appears to be an attempt by the Dáil to encroach on the functions of the Courts or a Judicial Tribunal;
4) members may only raise matters in a substantive manner (i.e. by way of Parliamentary Question, matter raised under Standing Order 37, motion, etc.) where due notice is required; and
5) when permission to raise a matter has been granted, there will continue to be an onus on members to avoid, if at all possible, comment which might in effect prejudice the outcome of proceedings.
29
Joint Committee on Public Petitions – Review of the Terms of Reference
6.1.3.1. Description
This standing order together with standing order 69 states the sub judice provision in standing orders.
6.1.3.2. Views of the Committee
The Committee has considered this standing order together with standing order 69 and is satisfied with the text of the standing order as it stands.
The Committee also acknowledges that certain officials (e.g. the Data Protection Commissioner Section 19(3) of the Data Protection Act 2018) may not be required to give an account before a Committee
“for any matter which is or has been or may at a future time be the subject of proceedings before a court or tribunal.”
There is an appeals process involving the High Court in a case of dispute between the Commissioner and the Committee.
6.1.3.3. Suggested amendments
The Committee is not recommending any amendments to this sub clause.
30
Joint Committee on Public Petitions – Review of the Terms of Reference
6.1.4. SO 127 (1) (d) (name of individual)
SO 127 Admissibility of petitions. (1) (d)
1) A petition is admissible unless it—
d) contains the name or names of individuals;
6.1.4.1. Description
This standing order gives the Committee power to rule petitions which the name or names of individuals to be inadmissible.
6.1.4.2. Views of the Committee
The Committee has considered this standing order and decided to recommend the deletion of this subclause.
This would allow individuals to be named in petitions.
However, the Committee is inclined not to publish names of individuals and other personal data except where appropriate and will follow the parliamentary practice in replacing the name with “details supplied” when publishing petitions.
6.1.4.3. Suggested amendments
SO 127 (1) (d) d) contains the name or names of individuals
The Committee recommends that SO 127 (1)(d) be deleted.
31
Joint Committee on Public Petitions – Review of the Terms of Reference
6.1.5. SO 127 (1) (e) (defamatory language)
SO 127 Admissibility of petitions. (1) (e)
2) A petition is admissible unless it—
e) contains language which is offensive or in the nature of being defamatory;
6.1.5.1. Description
This standing order gives the Committee power to rule petitions which contain language which is offensive or in the nature of being defamatory to be inadmissible.
6.1.5.2. Views of the Committee
The Committee has considered this standing order and is satisfied with the text of the standing order as it stands.
6.1.5.3. Suggested amendments
The Committee is not recommending any amendments to this sub clause.
32
Joint Committee on Public Petitions – Review of the Terms of Reference
6.1.6. SO 127 (1) (f) (similar petitions)
SO 127 Admissibility of petitions. (1) (f)
3) A petition is admissible unless it—
f) is the same as, or in substantially similar terms to, a petition brought by or on behalf of the same person, body corporate or unincorporated association during the lifetime of that Dáil and which was closed by agreement of the Committee;
6.1.6.1. Description
This standing order gives the Committee power to rule petitions which same as, or in substantially similar terms to, a petition brought by or on behalf of the same person during the lifetime of that Dáil and which was closed by agreement of the Committee to be inadmissible.
6.1.6.2. Views of the Committee
The Committee has considered this standing order and is satisfied with the text of the standing order as it stands.
The Committee has agreed that persons may resubmit petitions following a general election.
It is an open question whether petitions which are open on the date of a dissolution remain open when the new Committee takes office.
6.1.6.3. Suggested amendments
The Committee is not recommending any amendments to this sub clause.
33
Joint Committee on Public Petitions – Review of the Terms of Reference
6.1.7. SO 127 (1) (g) (an abuse of the petitions system)
SO 127 Admissibility of petitions. (1) (g)
4) A petition is admissible unless it—
g) is frivolous, vexatious or otherwise constitutes an abuse of the petitions system; and
6.1.7.1. Description
This standing order gives the Committee power to rule petitions which frivolous, vexatious or otherwise constitutes an abuse of the petitions system to be inadmissible.
6.1.7.2. Views of the Committee
The Committee has considered this standing order and is satisfied with the text of the standing order as it stands.
6.1.7.3. Suggested amendments
The Committee is not recommending any amendments to this sub clause.
34
Joint Committee on Public Petitions – Review of the Terms of Reference
6.1.8. SO 127 (1) (h) (a decision by an Ombudsman)
SO 127 Admissibility of petitions. (1) (h)
1) A petition is admissible unless it—
h) requires the Committee to consider an individual complaint which has been the subject of a decision by an Ombudsman, or by a regulatory public body or a body established for the purpose of redress.
6.1.8.1. Description
This standing order gives the Committee power to rule petitions which require the Committee to consider an individual complaint which has been the subject of a decision by an Ombudsman, or by a regulatory public body or a body established for the purpose of redress to be inadmissible.
6.1.8.2. Views of the Committee
The Ombudsman has the status of a higher court, and the question is whether the Committee should consider such individual decisions of the Ombudsman. The same applied to a regulatory public body or a body established for the purpose of redress.
However, this would not preclude the Committee from considering the broader policy questions while not impinging on the independence of the Ombudsman.
The Committee has considered this standing order and is satisfied with the text of the standing order as it stands.
6.1.8.3. Suggested amendments
The Committee is not recommending any amendments to this sub clause.
35
Joint Committee on Public Petitions – Review of the Terms of Reference
6.2. SO 127 (2) (Local or Regional matters)
SO 127 Admissibility of petitions. (2) (Local or Regional matters)
2) In relation to admissible petitions, where a petition deals with—
a) local or regional matters; or b) matters which are more appropriate to a regulatory public body or a body established for the purpose of redress;
the Committee shall establish that all available avenues of appeal or redress have been utilised by the petitioner prior to the Committee considering the matter.
6.2.1.1. Description
This standing order required the Committee to establish that all available avenues of appeal or redress have been utilised by the petitioner prior to the Committee considering:
a) local or regional matters; or b) matters which are more appropriate to: i. a regulatory public body ii. or a body established for the purpose of redress.
The petitioner must have utilised all available avenues of appeal or redress, which presumably would include bodies such as the Ombudsman, regulatory public body or redress body, before the Committee may consider the matter.
There may be some difficulties reconciling this order with SO 127 (1) (h) which says that a petition is inadmissible if it
“requires the Committee to consider an individual complaint which has been the subject of a decision by an Ombudsman, or by a regulatory public body or a body established for the purpose of redress.”
6.2.1.2. Views of the Committee
The Committee has considered this standing order and is satisfied with the text of the standing order as it stands.
The Committee will make a decision depending upon the circumstances in each case.
6.2.1.3. Suggested amendments
The Committee is not recommending any amendments to this sub clause.
36
Joint Committee on Public Petitions – Review of the Terms of Reference
6.3. SO 127 (3) (in a case of dispute the Committee shall decide)
SO 127 Admissibility of petitions. (3)
3) The Committee shall consider and decide in a case of dispute whether a petition is admissible and shall notify the petitioner of its decision and of the reasons for that decision.
6.3.1. Description
The Committee will decide cases of dispute whether a petition is admissible or not.
6.3.2. Views of the Committee
The Committee has considered this standing order and is satisfied with the text of the standing order as it stands.
The Committee will make a decision depending upon the circumstances in each case.
6.3.3. Suggested amendments
The Committee is not recommending any amendments to this sub clause.
37
Joint Committee on Public Petitions – Review of the Terms of Reference
7. Review of SO 128 Actions in relation to petitions
7.1. SO 128 (1) (such action as it considers appropriate)
SO 128 Actions in relation to petitions. (1)
1) ) If a petition is admissible, the Committee shall take such action as it considers appropriate in relation to that petition.
7.1.1. Description
The Committee shall take such action as it considers appropriate in relation to that petition.
7.1.2. Views of the Committee
The Committee has considered this standing order and is satisfied with the text of the standing order as it stands.
7.1.3. Suggested amendments
The Committee is not recommending any amendments to this sub clause.
38
Joint Committee on Public Petitions – Review of the Terms of Reference
7.2. SO 128 (2) (other actions)
SO 128 Actions in relation to petitions. (2)
2) Without prejudice to the generality of paragraph (1), the Committee may— a) refer the petition to an Ombudsman or a regulatory public body or a body established for the purpose of redress; b) refer the petition to any other Committee as it considers appropriate, with a request for further consideration and report back to the Committee; and c) report to the Dáil with recommendations, including a request that the report be debated by the Dáil.
7.2.1. Description
The Committee may refer the petition:
a) to an Ombudsman or a regulatory public body or a body established for the purpose of redress; b) refer the petition to any other Committee with a request for further consideration and report back; c) to the Dáil and/or Seanad with recommendations, including a request that the report be debated by the Dáil and/or Seanad.
7.2.2. Views of the Committee
The Committee is of the view that the Dáil and Seanad should consider three reports from the Committee in plenary session each year.
Otherwise, the Committee has considered this standing order and is satisfied with the text of the standing order as it stands.
7.2.3. Suggested amendments
DSO 128 (2) (c)
Insert
“The Dáil shall consider three such reports in plenary session per annum.”
Similarly, for the Seanad.
39
Joint Committee on Public Petitions – Review of the Terms of Reference
SO 102 Debating of reports from Committees.
(1) Where a Standing, Select, Special or Joint Committee, as the case may be, makes a report containing a request that the report be debated by the Dáil, a motion to take note of the report shall, as soon as practicable after the adoption of the report by the Committee, be placed on the Order Paper: Provided that any such motion which is not moved within twelve months from the date on which it was first placed on the Order Paper shall be deemed to have lapsed, but without prejudice to the right to put down such motion again.
(2) The Committee Chairman may give notice that he or she wishes to bring forward for consideration on an alternate Thursday, a Committee report that has been laid before the Dáil and in respect of which a motion to take note of the report is listed on the Order Paper: Provided that such notice shall be received by the Business Committee not later than 11 a.m. on the fourth day preceding the weekly meeting of the Business Committee.
(3) The Committee report to be considered on an alternate Thursday shall be determined by the Business Committee.
(4) The time allowed for the debate on the motion to take note of the report shall not exceed a period of two hours in the aggregate.
Provided that the following time limits and sequence of speakers shall apply to the debate:
(a) the speeches of—
(i) the member proposing the motion who shall be the Chairman of the Committee or another member of the Committee nominated in his or her stead, and
(ii) a member of the Government or Minister of State, who shall outline the Government’s response to the report, including the Government’s response to any recommendations contained therein,
shall not exceed 15 minutes in each case;
(b) the speech of each other member called upon shall not exceed ten minutes;
(c) a member of the Government or Minister of State, who may speak twice, shall be entitled to make a speech immediately before the reply by the proposer, which shall not exceed ten minutes;
(d) the proposer shall be entitled to not more than ten minutes for a speech in reply; and
(e) all members shall be entitled to share their time.
40
Joint Committee on Public Petitions – Review of the Terms of Reference
7.3. SO 128 (3) (notify the petitioner)
SO 128 Actions in relation to petitions (3)
3) The Committee shall notify the petitioner of any action taken under paragraph (2).
7.3.1. Description
The petitioner has the right to be informed of any action taken.
7.3.2. Views of the Committee
The Committee has considered this standing order and is satisfied with the text of the standing order as it stands.
7.3.3. Recommendations
The Committee is not recommending any amendments to this clause.
41
Joint Committee on Public Petitions – Review of the Terms of Reference
8. Review of SO 129 Closing of Petitions
8.1. SO 129 (1) (closing a petition)
SO 129 (1) Closing of Petitions
1) The Committee may close a petition at any time.
8.1.1. Description
The Committee may close a petition at any time.
8.1.2. Views of the Committee
The Committee has considered this standing order and is satisfied with the text of the standing order as it stands.
8.1.3. Recommendations
The Committee is not recommending any amendments to this sub clause.
8.2. SO 129 (2) (notify the petitioner)
SO 129 (2) Closing of Petitions
2) Where the Committee closes a petition it shall notify the petitioner that the petition is closed and of the reasons for closing it.
8.2.1. Description
The petitioner has the right to be informed that their petition was closed and the reasons for closing it.
8.2.2. Views of the Committee
The Committee has considered this standing order and is satisfied with the text of the standing order as it stands.
8.2.3. Recommendations
The Committee is not recommending any amendments to this sub clause.
42
Joint Committee on Public Petitions – Review of the Terms of Reference
9. Review of SO 130 Consideration of Ombudsman report
130 Consideration of Ombudsman report (SO 130)
Where a Select Committee does not under Standing Order 95(8)(b)12 consider an Ombudsman report, or a portion or portions thereof, within two months (excluding Christmas, Easter or summer recess periods) of the report being laid before either or both Houses of the Oireachtas, the Committee shall proceed to consider the Ombudsman report, or any portions thereof not considered by the Select Committee.
95 Functions of Departmental Select Committees.
9) A Select Committee appointed pursuant to this Standing Order may, in respect of any Ombudsman charged with oversight of public services within the policy remit of the relevant Department consider―
a) such motions relating to the appointment of an Ombudsman as may be referred to the Committee, and
b) such Ombudsman reports laid before either or both Houses of the Oireachtas as the Committee may select: Provided that the provisions of Standing Order 130 apply where the Select Committee has not considered the Ombudsman report, or a portion or portions thereof, within two months (excluding Christmas, Easter or summer recess periods) of the report being laid before either or both Houses of the Oireachtas.13
9.1.1. Description
Where a Select Committee does not consider an Ombudsman report, or a portion or portions thereof, within two months (excluding Christmas, Easter or summer recess periods) of the report being laid before either or both Houses of the Oireachtas, the Committee shall proceed to consider the Ombudsman report, or any portions thereof not considered by the Select Committee.
12 95(8)(b) above should read 95(9)(b) in the 27 January 2021 consolidated version of the Standing Orders of Dáil Éireann. 13 Retained pending review of the Joint Committee on Public Petitions
43
Joint Committee on Public Petitions – Review of the Terms of Reference
9.1.2. Views of the Committee
The Committee notes the Venice Principles, approved by the Council of Europe, the European Union and the United Nations.
The Committee wishes to review its relationship with all the Ombudsmen in Ireland:
• the Defence Forces Ombudsman, • the Children’s Ombudsman, • an Coimisinéir Teanga, • the Financial Services and Pensions Ombudsman, • the Press Ombudsman, • the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission, • and the Ombudsman.
The Committee considered recommending a return to the status quo ante (i.e. the 2012 standing orders) where only the Petitions Committee oversaw the Ombudsmen.
However, having consulted the Irish Ombudsman Forum, the Committee sees merit in continuing the current practice where reports from Ombudsmen concerning Health matters may be considered by the Joint Committee on Health and Garda Ombudsman reports can be considered by the Joint Committee on Justice, as these sectoral committees would be subject matter experts in their respective fields.
However, the Committee is of the view that there is a strong case for an overarching oversight role with regard to the Ombudsmen, in a somewhat analogous way to the European Union Affairs Committee taking the broader view to EU membership, while the sectoral Committee look at the details of EU legislation withing their respective fields.
For example, motions relating to the appointment of an Ombudsman could be referred to the Joint Committee on Public Petitions.
The Committee is of the view that enhanced cooperation and oversight can best be achieved through entering into memoranda of understanding with the sectoral Committees, the Ombudsmen, and other actors in the Petitions Ecosphere.
9.1.3. Recommendations
The Committee is not recommending any amendments to this standing order.
44
Joint Committee on Public Petitions – Review of the Terms of Reference
10. Review of SO 96 Powers of Select Committees (July 2020) (SSO 72)
Note: Standing 125 4) a) states that “The Joint Committee (on Public Petitions) shall have the following powers: the powers defined in Standing Order 96, other than paragraphs (4), (6), (7) thereof; and …”
SO 96. Powers of Select Committees.
Unless the Dáil (Seanad) shall otherwise order, a Committee appointed pursuant to these Standing Orders shall have the following powers:
1. power to invite and receive oral and written evidence and to print and publish from time to time― a) minutes of such evidence as was heard in public, and b) such evidence in writing as the Committee thinks fit. 2. power to appoint sub-Committees and to refer to such sub-Committees any matter comprehended by its orders of reference and to delegate any of its powers to such sub-Committees, including power to report directly to the Dáil. 3. power to draft recommendations for legislative change and for new legislation. 4. in relation to any statutory instrument, including those laid or laid in draft before either or both Houses of the Oireachtas, power to― a) require any Government Department or other instrument-making authority concerned to― i) submit a memorandum to the Select Committee explaining the statutory instrument, or ii) attend a meeting of the Select Committee to explain any such statutory instrument: Provided that the authority concerned may decline to attend for reasons given in writing to the Select Committee, which may report thereon to the Dáil, and b) recommend, where it considers that such action is warranted, that the instrument should be annulled or amended;14 5. power to require that a member of the Government or Minister of State shall attend before the Select Committee to discuss― a) policy, or b) proposed primary or secondary legislation (prior to such legislation being published),
14 Paragraph 4) does not apply to the Joint Committee on Public Petitions
45
Joint Committee on Public Petitions – Review of the Terms of Reference
for which he or she is officially responsible: Provided that a member of the Government or Minister of State may decline to attend for stated reasons given in writing to the Select Committee, which may report thereon to the Dáil: and provided further that a member of the Government or Minister of State may request to attend a meeting of the Select Committee to enable him or her to discuss such policy or proposed legislation.
6. power to require that a member of the Government or Minister of State shall attend before the Select Committee and provide, in private session if so requested by the attendee, oral briefings in advance of meetings of the relevant EC Council (of Ministers) of the European Union to enable the Select Committee to make known its views: Provided that the Committee may also require such attendance following such meetings;15 7. power to require that the Chairperson designate of a body or agency under the aegis of a Department shall, prior to his or her appointment, attend before the Select Committee to discuss his or her strategic priorities for the role;16 8. power to require that a member of the Government or Minister of State who is officially responsible for the implementation of an Act shall attend before a Select Committee in relation to the consideration of a report under Standing Order 197;17 9. subject to any constraints otherwise prescribed by law, power to require that principal officeholders of a― a) State body within the responsibility of a Government Department or b) non-State body which is partly funded by the State, shall attend meetings of the Select Committee, as appropriate, to discuss issues for which they are officially responsible: Provided that such an office-holder may decline to attend for stated reasons given in writing to the Select Committee, which may report thereon to the Dáil; and
10. power to― a) engage the services of persons with specialist or technical knowledge, to assist it or any of its sub-Committees in considering particular matters; and b) undertake travel; Provided that the powers under this paragraph are subject to such recommendations as may be made by the Working Group of Committee Chairmen under Standing Order 120(4)(a).18
15 Paragraph 6) does not apply to the Joint Committee on Public Petitions 16 Paragraph 7) does not apply to the Joint Committee on Public Petitions 17 Post-enactment report. 18 Working Group of Committee Chairmen.
46
Joint Committee on Public Petitions – Review of the Terms of Reference
10.1. Description
The standing order outlines the powers of select committees.
Most of the powers apply to the Joint Committee on Public Petitions.
Powers that do not apply are:
a) Power to require that a Government department supply a memorandum or attend a committee meeting to consider secondary legislation, or to recommend that such secondary legislation be annulled. b) Power to require that a Minister or Minister of State attend a meeting of the committee before and or after a meeting of the Council of Ministers of the European Union. c) Power to require that Chairpersons designate attend before the committee before their appointment.
10.2. Views of the Committee
The Committee has considered this standing order and is satisfied with the text of the standing order as it stands.
10.3. Recommendations
The Committee is not recommending any amendments to this sub clause.
47
Joint Committee on Public Petitions – Review of the Terms of Reference
48
Joint Committee on Public Petitions – Review of the Terms of Reference
Appendix A: Library & Research Service Briefing Paper:
Policy and the Public Interest
Exploration and possible applications for the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Public Petitions
Niall Watters, 7 December 2020 Abstract
The Briefing Paper was requested by the Clerk of Committee on Public Petitions. The purpose of the Briefing Paper is to assist the Committee in its deliberations over the use and application of the terms ‘public policy’, ‘policy’ ‘public concern’ and ‘public interest’ in the development of its terms of reference for the 33rd Dáil and 25th Seanad. Legal Disclaimer
No liability is accepted to any person arising out of any reliance on the contents of this paper. Nothing herein constitutes professional advice of any kind. This document contains a general summary of developments and is not complete or definitive. It has been prepared for distribution to Members to aid them in their parliamentary duties. Some papers, such as Bill Digests are prepared at very short notice. They are produced in the time available between the publication of a Bill and its scheduling for second stage debate. Authors are available to discuss the contents of these papers with Members and their staff but not with members of the general public.
© Houses of the Oireachtas 2020
49
Joint Committee on Public Petitions – Review of the Terms of Reference
1. Introduction
The Briefing Paper has been prepared for the Clerk of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Public Petitions to assist the Committee in its deliberations on the development of its terms/orders of reference for the current parliament. In so doing, it is intended as a background paper to aid the Committee (and Committee Secretariat) (and has no other purpose or standing) in its consideration of defining the terms “general public interest or concern” and “public policy”.
This paper is based on an analysis of academic literature and current practices in analogous parliaments. The paper is not prescriptive and is intended to act solely as an aid to the Committee’s deliberations.
The paper is structured as follows:
1. An introduction setting out the context of the briefing paper. 2. A brief overview of the context for the paper and the role of petition committees in parliamentary settings including Ireland. 3. Discussion of relevant theory and principles, based on available literature, which may include information on: • definitions of public policy and thereafter its application in parliamentary settings; and, • definitions of terms “general public interest” or “concern”, again applied where relevant in the parliamentary setting. 4. Exploring potential wordings for use by the Joint Committee on Public Petitions.
50
Joint Committee on Public Petitions – Review of the Terms of Reference
2. Context for the paper
2.1. Background and functions
The Joint Committee on Public Petitions was established by motion on September 24, 2020.19 As part of the motion, the Committee was asked to report in three months from its first meeting on the overview of its terms of reference to the Houses of the Oireachtas. This forms the broader context for the present the briefing paper.
In the Houses of Oireachtas most recently, the Joint Committee on Public Petitions has functioned in the main to enhance engagement between parliament and citizens on matters of general public concern or interest. The Committee considers the petitions submitted by members of the public and can refer them to the Ombudsman or other regulatory public body, or to another committee for consideration, or the Committee can make a report to the Houses of the Oireachtas on an issue and request a debate in the Dáil.
The Joint Committee on Public Petitions therefore provides a means for members of the public to take their policy concerns directly to Parliament and to seek to influence the parliamentary agenda.20
The Joint Committee on Public Petitions is a Standing Committee, provided for in Dáil and Seanad Standing Orders.21 Dáil Standing Order 125 sets out as the broad remit of the Committee to consider public petitions addressed to the Houses of the Oireachtas, and other matters referred to the Committee by the Houses of the Oireachtas. In view of the aims of this briefing paper, Standing Order 125(2) states that, as well as public petitions, the Committee:
“may also consider a matter of general public concern or interest in relation to the legislative powers of the Houses of the Oireachtas or an issue of public policy”
This therefore poses the question of what is meant, in theory and then in practice, for the Committee by “matters of general public concern or interest” relative to the legislative powers of the Houses and “issues of public policy”. This is the main concern of the present paper.
19 Report of the Committee of Selection: Motion, Dáil Éireann debate, 24 September 2020. 20 Joint Committee on Public Petitions (2019), Annual Report 2018. 21 Dáil Éireann (2020) Standing Orders relative to Public Business
51
Joint Committee on Public Petitions – Review of the Terms of Reference
2.2. How the Committee differs from other Oireachtas Committees
The orders of reference as set out in the Standing Orders for the Committee on Public Petitions differ markedly to those of most other Oireachtas Committees. For instance, Standing Order 95, sets out the functions of Select Committees, which can be joined for these purposes by the select committee appointed by the other House, leading to the establishment of Joint Committees. Standing Order 95 is considerably narrower that than for the Committee on Public Petitions and includes, among other things, the following:
• Consideration of expenditure, administration and policy of government departments • EU matters within the remit of departments • Matters of policy and governance for which the relevant Minister is responsible • Public affairs administered by the Department • Government policy and governance in respect of bodies under the aegis of the Department • policy and governance issues concerning bodies which are partly or wholly funded by the State • the consideration of draft legislation and secondary legislation which comes under the remit of the relevant Department, Departments, Ministers and Ministers for State.
So in short, while other Houses of the Oireachtas Committees for the most part have well defined and specific functions, such as standing committees with specific remit or sectoral committees which ‘shadow’ the work of one or more Government Departments, the Committee on Public Petitions has a more encompassing, broad remit with respect to issues of “public concern or interest” and or “public policy”. The remit of the Committee on Public Petitions therefore goes beyond the concern for one policy area or government department but is limited to consideration of topics that are within the remit of the Houses of the Oireachtas to legislate on. This suggests that remit of the Committee is in theory very broad relative to other Oireachtas committees.
2.3. Origins of the petitions system in the Houses of the Oireachtas
In the previous 32nd Dáil and 25th Seanad, the Joint Committee on Public Petitions was established on 12 July 2016 and dissolved on 14 January 2020. This was preceded by the Joint Committee on Public Service Oversight and Petitions in the 31st Dáil and 24th Seanad, which in turn evolved from the Oireachtas Committee on Investigations, Oversight and Petitions. The latter Committee had its origins in the commitment made in the 2011 Programme for Government (Government of National Recovery 2011-2016) and accounted for in Dáil Standing Orders in 2012.
52
Joint Committee on Public Petitions – Review of the Terms of Reference
The initial impetus for the petitions system in the Irish context can therefore be traced back to the 2011 Programme for Government, the first new government following the financial crisis of 2008/2009. It is worth noting that the 2011 Programme for Government focused on several areas of political and parliamentary reform.
The 2011 Programme for Government stated the rationale for the planned Committee as follows:
“We propose an Investigations, Oversight and Petitions Committee of the Oireachtas. It would be a powerful committee, constructed on the lines of the Public Accounts Committee, bipartisan in structure and chaired by a senior member of the opposition.
The Committee would be the formal channel of consultation and collaboration between the Oireachtas and the Ombudsman, responsible for receiving and debating her annual and special reports and for ensuring that her criticisms and recommendations are acted upon. For that purpose, she would attend as a regular witness before the committee.
The Committee would receive parliamentary petitions from individuals and groups in the community seeking the redress of grievances connected with the public services of the State and with the public administration generally. Its functions would be to act as a "clearing house", directing complaints to those bodies most competent to act on them: the Ombudsman, the Data Protection Commissioner, the Local Government Auditor, the Oireachtas committee that has oversight of the relevant Department, and so on.”22
The Thirtieth Amendment of the Constitution (Houses of the Oireachtas Inquiries) Bill 2011, provided for a new approach to parliamentary inquiries. The Department of Public Expenditure and Reform’s briefing note accompanying the Bill, stated that:23
“if the proposed amendment to the Constitution is accepted the objective for the new inquiry arrangements is to secure effective and cost-effective parliamentary scrutiny of issues of general public importance in a manner consistent with precepts of constitutional and natural justice.”
The new system of inquiries envisaged additional powers for the Joint Committee on Investigations, Oversight and Petitions in relation to the establishment of Oireachtas
22 Department of the Taoiseach, 2011: 21, Government for National Recovery 2011-2016 23 Cited from O’Leary, E.M. (2014) Oireachtas Inquiries Referendum, Irish Political Studies, 29:2, 318-329.
53
Joint Committee on Public Petitions – Review of the Terms of Reference
Committee Inquiries. Those powers were described by the then Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, Deputy Brendan Howlin.24
“Turning to the specific role of this committee, in the draft heads, the Investigations, Oversight and Petitions Committee is known as the oversight committee. As its name suggests, the oversight committee will have a pivotal role in the new inquiry process, particularly in initiating the inquiry, making rules and guidelines governing its conduct, and overseeing any changes in the terms of reference following the investigatory phase. It will be entirely in the hands of this committee to determine whether a request for an inquiry should proceed or be denied. If consent is withheld, the committee will be required to provide reasons for the refusal, but that will be the end of it. There will be no appeal to the Dáil. The committee will be the gatekeeper and decision maker in the matter. The oversight committee will, therefore, play a key filtering or gateway role in the inquiry process. It is expected that, in time, it will develop particular expertise and authority in assessing applications and advising the Houses as to when it is appropriate to conduct an inquiry, and also in determining when it is not appropriate to do so.”
However, these powers were diluted somewhat following the referendum defeat when the role of the Committee reverted to that set out for it in the Programme for Government. After the referendum the Minister said, “The committee’s primary role, as I see it, is to facilitate a re-engagement between the public and the Oireachtas, public administration and the public service.”25
Notwithstanding the results of the referendum, it is worth nothing that the arguments for and against the referendum made reference to, among other things, public interest issues: the ‘Yes’ campaign for instance suggested that the passing of the referendum would “provide an efficient way to investigate matters of public importance” and the ‘No’ campaign commented that the “Oireachtas would be able to decide which matters of general public importance could be investigated”.26
The key point in the present context is a recognition that the Committee dealing with petitions would provide an oversight function, building on participatory democracy, on matters of ‘public importance’ and ‘public interest’ in public administration. This has generally been a goal of petitions committees in the Houses of the Oireachtas since its first inception in 2011.
24 Joint Committee on Investigations, Oversight and Petitions meeting, 14 September 2011. 25 Joint Committee on Investigations, Oversight and Petitions meeting, 15 December 2011. 26 O’Leary, E.M. (2014) Oireachtas Inquiries Referendum, Irish Political Studies, 29:2, 318-329.
54
Joint Committee on Public Petitions – Review of the Terms of Reference
2.4. Petition committees in parliamentary settings
Petitioning has been associated with parliamentary settings since the 14th Century in the case of the UK House of Commons.27 Historically, the purpose of petitions in parliamentary settings was to enable those who did not have political representation a forum or vehicle to air their views. In contemporary times, Bochel (2013) notes that petitions remain one of the more common forms of political participation. Indeed, they have made a ‘comeback of sorts’ in the twenty first century, following their waning in the twentieth century on foot of the expansion of representative democracy.28 Part of the present-day rationale for parliamentary petitioning is to promote greater public engagement with parliamentary beyond representative democracy solely.29
The specific role of petitions systems differs across parliaments. However, they typically play a role as part of Parliament’s oversight of government and in particular defending the rights of citizen in their grievances with parts of government or government policies.30 In many parliaments, the petitions infrastructure is allied to the office of ombudsman in respect of complaints from the public regarding the decisions, actions or omissions of the public administration.31 Alongside the greater use of parliamentary petitions in the last twenty years to improve public participation, digitisation and online access has also increased the petitions process of parliaments most notably through e-petitions systems.
Many factors have come together to underpin this greater use of petitions, these include among others:32
• ideas around the empowerment of individuals; • the trend towards and encouragement of citizen participation by government; • the desire to address the perceived decline in political engagement; • the opportunities provided by online systems to facilitate interactions between citizens and governments; and,
27 Bochel, C. (2013), Petitions systems: Contributing to Representative Democracy, Parliamentary Affairs, Vol. 66, pp. 798-815 28 Leston-Bandeira, C., 2019. Parliamentary petitions and public engagement: an empirical analysis of the role of e-petitions. Policy and Politics, 47(3), pp. 415-436 29 Hough, R. (2012) "Do Legislative Petitions Systems Enhance the Relationship between Parliament and Citizen?", Journal of legislative studies, vol. 18, no. 3-4, pp. 479-495 30 Yamamoto, H. (2007), Tools for parliamentary oversight – A comparative study of 88 national parliaments, Genevan: Inter-Parliamentary Union. 31 Yamamoto, H. (2007), Tools for parliamentary oversight – A comparative study of 88 national parliaments, Geneva: Inter-Parliamentary Union. 32 Paraphrasing from Bochel, 2013
55
Joint Committee on Public Petitions – Review of the Terms of Reference
• the emphasis on improving the policy-making process, including through the greater participation of citizens and users.
Overall, it is suggested that modern petition systems seek to encompass the principles of power sharing, accountability, access and participation and in so doing they seek to create a synthesis between traditional representative democracy and aspects of a participatory form of democracy.33
Despite the increase in petitions committees and petition processes seen in parliaments in the twenty first century34, Leston-Bandeira (2019) argues that there remains a lack of discussion of, and consequently narrow assumptions about, the remit and purposes of petitions systems and related committees.35 These ‘narrow’ assumptions tend to centre on two processes, first, the ability of petitions and petitions committees to affect policy, and second, their success or otherwise of enabling of great political participation.36
This narrow casting of the purpose of parliamentary petitions can be traced to a similarly narrow conception of parliaments as a ‘law-making’ entity solely, which has had the effect of masking the oversight and scrutiny roles parliaments play including a greater focus on the analysis of government (and hence, public) policy. Leston-Bandeira argues that an appropriate understanding of modern parliamentary petitions systems should reflect therefore the expansive role and interests of parliaments, which includes focusing on law-making as well as related processes and outputs. This approach to understanding parliamentary petition systems is particularly apt as “petitions to parliament do not exist in a vacuum: they are part of a system that mediates between citizens and policymaking, with consequences beyond the act of participation and the possible amendment to policy.”37
Along similar lines, a number of studies have attached the following broad roles to contemporary parliamentary petitions systems:38
• ‘Safety-valve’ • Early warning system • Communication of information • Affect policy change
33 Bochel, C. (2012) "Petitions: Different Dimensions of Voice and Influence in the Scottish Parliament and the National Assembly for Wales", Social policy & administration, vol. 46, no. 2, pp. 142-160 34 Ibid 35 Leston-Bandeira, C., 2019. Parliamentary petitions and public engagement: an empirical analysis of the role of e-petitions. Policy and Politics, 47(3), pp. 415-436 36 Ibid 37 Ibid: 417. 38 Carman, 2006; Hough, 2012; Saalfield and Dobmeier, 2012; Linder and Riehm, 2011; Escher and Riehm, 2017; Bochel, 2012; all cited in Leston-Bandeira, 2019.
56
Joint Committee on Public Petitions – Review of the Terms of Reference
• Link between parliament and citizens • Provision of a voice for the public • Integration and legitimacy • Scrutiny of the executive, and, • Mobilisation
This set of roles have reduced in one assessment to four main types of functions or roles parliamentary petitions systems fulfil:
• Linkage: which refers to consequences above the direct relationship between citizens and parliament, such as information about an institution or the ability to express one’s opinions and experiences to parliament. • Campaigning: this refers to the manner by which petition systems bringing groupings of citizens, with similar experiences and views, together. • Scrutiny: where petitions systems identify issues that warrant scrutiny and which are not the current subject of such scrutiny; and, • Policy: referring to occasions where petitions allow for the identification of policy problems and related policy solutions.39
Across these four roles there is an emphasis on the shared experiences of the public (or some parts of the public) which is related to aspects of (public) policy that in turn merits parliamentary scrutiny.
Participation is often seen as having the potential to bring a range of benefits to individuals and to society, including building social capital, improving democracy, contributing to better policy and decision-making, and helping to legitimise policy decisions.40 This account also suggests that petitions committees have selected, among a broad array of petitions received, some cases on which they wish to hear evidence on the basis that the issue has a wider public interest. In keeping with the purpose of this paper, this begs the question of what in practice constitutes policy and thereafter public interest in the context of the work of petitions committees and processes?
39 Leston-Bandeira, 2019. 40 Bochel, 2012.
57
Joint Committee on Public Petitions – Review of the Terms of Reference
3. What constitutes “policy” and “public concern or interest”
This part of paper explores in turn firstly the concept(s) of “public concern” and “public interest” and secondly “policy” and “public policy.”
3.1. Public concern or interest
For the sake of clarity and brevity, public interest and public concern are assumed to have similar meanings. This is evident by interchangeable usage of both terms in the literature as or in other cases, a specific discipline (law, science etc.) may be more likely, based on convention and norms, to use one term more often than the other. Moreover, this reflects also the text set down in the terms of reference and standing orders for the Committee on Petitions which refers to both matters of “public concern and public interest”, and is also in keeping with the initial thinking concerned with the establishment of the 2011 committee.
Looking at the literature on the application of the concepts of “public interest” or “public concern” in parliamentary settings, while the terms are often used in the context of the role of parliaments, there is not a broad set of academic or policy literature on what is meant in by public concern or public interest in the context of parliament. In short, the application of the terms and their understanding is assumed.
In researching this briefing paper, the use of public interest as a term was applied to various academic and policy searches. This suggested that public interest is most widely referred to in the areas of political science and theory, the environment, law, planning, journalism, among others. The results of the search, discussed below, suggests on the one hand that the term has broad appeal and usage and on the other hand that it is rarely specifically defined, and where it is defined, this is typically in the confines of a specific academic discipline, normally theoretical, or policy area. A number of areas are discussed in turn below.
3.2. Political science
Political science and political studies, and - to a greater extent - political theory, tends to refer to issues of the public interest and public concern as part and parcel of the functioning of political systems.41 In this regard, Zarecor observed that it was possible to interpret the history of political theory as “a series of attempts to formulate the best possible method of serving the public interest”.42 Mouffe, citing Rawls, observes that in
41 See for example: Li, H. 2019, "Public Concern and Political Deliberation: A Deliberative Democratic Image of Oakeshott's Civil Association Theory", Universitas – Monthly Review of Philosophy and Culture, vol. 46, no. 1, pp. 151-167. 42 Zarecor, W.D. 1959: 277, "The Public Interest and Political Theory", Ethics, vol. 69, no. 4, pp. 277-280.
58
Joint Committee on Public Petitions – Review of the Terms of Reference
political theory there has also been a clear separation between the private – where there can be a plurality of different and irreconcilable views simultaneously – and the public – where overlapping consensus can be established over a shared conception of ‘justice’.43
From a purely political science perspective, the public interest has been defined as those interests that relate to the welfare or well-being of a broad and diverse collection of individuals citizens in relation to a specific policy.44 De Bruycker states in this regard that public interests:45
“…are broader than the interests of parties, minority groups, territorial entities, or any other well-delineated or formalized group of citizens. They refer to a diffuse array of individual citizens or the general public, such as ‘taxpayers’, ‘patients’, ‘consumers’, or European citizens in general.
In terms of political parties, McDonald et al. show that parties of the right, centre and left, while holding existing positions of policy issues, increase their attention on specific issues as the level of public concern in the issue increases.46 These authors use a number of examples of public concern including unemployment, inflation, welfare and international tensions.
Other strands of political science literature note that the identification of issues of public interest have the potential to broaden cognisance of such issues and, it has been argued, that ‘publics’ emerge around issues of concern.47
Although not specifically related to political science, McDermont makes a O’Flynn (2010), while not defining the similar point and shows how the concept, states that for practical defunding of citizens advisory services, purposes “‘the public interest’ is the typically voluntary bodies, is a matter same as ‘the common good’, ‘the public 48 of public concern. Her reasoning good’, ‘the general interest’, ‘the posits that such services re-present the personal grievances of multiple clients which national interest’ etc when clustered reflect broader issues of public interest or public concern:49
43 Mouffe, C. (2000) Deliberative democracy or agonistic pluralism, Political Science Series, Vol. 72, Vienna: Institute for Advanced Studies. 44 De Bruycker, I. 2017, "Politicization and the public interest: When do the elites in Brussels address public interests in EU policy debates?", European Union politics, vol. 18, no. 4, pp. 603-619. 45 2017: 2 46 McDonald, M.D., Budge, I. & Pennings, P.J.M. 2004, "Choice versus sensitivity : Party reactions to public concerns", European journal of political research, vol. 43, no. 6, pp. 845-868. 47 Latour B (2005) ‘From Realpolitik to Dingpolitik or How to Make Things Public’, pp. 14–47 in B Latour and P Weibel (eds) Making Things Public: Atmospheres of Democracy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 48 Mcdermont, M. 2012;2013;, "Acts of translation: UK advice agencies and the creation of matters-of-public- concern", Critical social policy, vol. 33, no. 2, pp. 218-242. 49 Mcdermont, M. 2012:219
59
Joint Committee on Public Petitions – Review of the Terms of Reference
“Through re-presenting the personal grievances of multiple clients as matters-of- public-concern, they can show to legislators and policy-makers the ways in which the policies and practices of powerful institutions create injustices for citizens; and make visible the ways in which mechanisms meant to enable access to justice frequently fail.”
Again, the logic or threshold suggested by this reasoning is the weight of numbers experiencing specific issues serve to locate them as issues of public interest. McDermont’s (2012) analysis suggests that those agencies involved in housing, welfare, migrant rights, citizens advice etc., can take matters of individual concern into the public domain as broader processes that affect larger numbers and as such constitute matters in the public domain as a public rather than private concern. She conceives of this as the process of translation from (1) public policy and practice to the personal and (2) from a collection of personal issues or disputes into (3) the field of public concerns.
However, in keeping with other disciplines discussed here, Long’s overview of the concept’s treatment in political science suggest that despite efforts to trace out its meaning, as attempted above, it has remained a nebulous concept when it comes to precise definitions.50 Long shows how the concept has also been explored with reference to the practice of those agencies that used the term and the meaning they provided: he observes that there was no definite or common understanding of the term and that perhaps that the breadth of meanings of the term was preferable. He does however suggest that the public interest has been used “as evaluator instrument…conceived is a standard for appraising the policies and performance of some jurisdiction as it affects the lives of the population of the jurisdiction.”51 Moreover, this account observes that the task of political science insofar as it is concerned with the public interest is “to evaluate institutions and policies in terms of their effects on the lives of the particular public and possibilities for improvement.”
However, given the generality of uses of the concept in political science (and more broadly, see sections below), O’ Flynn (2010), while not defining the concept, states that for practical purposes “‘the public interest’ is the same as ‘the common good’, ‘the public good’, ‘the general interest’, ‘the national interest’ etc.”52
50 Long, N.E. 1991, "The 1991 John Gaus Lecture: Politics, Political Science and the Public Interest", PS, political science & politics, vol. 24, no. 4, pp. 670-675 51 Long, 1991:674 52 O’Flynn, I. 2010, "Deliberating About the Public Interest", Res publica (Liverpool, England), vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 299-315.
60
Joint Committee on Public Petitions – Review of the Terms of Reference
3.3. Environment
A number of studies have framed concerns with climate change in the context of it being an issue of public interest.53 This is the case by virtue that climate change is likely to negatively affect a broad proportion of the population and as such it is an issue of broad public interest or concern. However, these studies assume that, given their knowledge of nature of climate change, it is an issue of public concern or public interest but do not define it. There is an assumption that the extent of impact of climate change, drawn from scientific data, leads to its framing as an issue of public interest.
One set of authors, while acknowledging this, however point to the fact that - as well as the influence of media and political ideological bias in denying the extent of climate change - members of the public may not have the required level of scientific literacy to decipher climate change in terms of it constituting an issue of public interest or concern.54 In fact, this study found that “the strongest effects on public concern are a function of increases in [parliamentary] attention on climate change, which in turn influences media coverage, which then increases public concern about climate change.” 55 This speaks to the important role parliaments can play in highlighting issues of public interest where they are not yet, but ought to be, perceived as such.
3.4. Law
Referring to the UK, Anthony (2013) notes that one of the most prominent features of judicial review is the extent to which the concept of ‘the public interest’ is used by the courts when resolving different points of law. While the use of the term can be traced to the doctrine of public interest immunity associated with Crown privilege, Anthony
53 Sandvik, Hanno (2008) Public concern over global warming correlates negatively with national wealth. Climatic Change 90(3): 333–341; Schuldt, J.P., Eiseman, D.L. & Hoffmann, M.P. 2020, "Public concern about climate change impacts on food choices: The interplay of knowledge and politics", Agriculture and human values, vol. 37, no. 3, pp. 885-893; Bakaki, Z., Böhmelt, T. & Ward, H. 2020;2019;, "The triangular relationship between public concern for environmental issues, policy output, and media attention", Environmental politics, vol. 29, no. 7, pp. 1157- 1177. Anger, N., Asane-Otoo, E., Böhringer, C., & Oberndorfer, U. 2016, "Public interest versus interest groups: a political economy analysis of allowance allocation under the EU emissions trading scheme", International environmental agreements : politics, law and economics, vol. 16, no. 5, pp. 621-638. Munnichs, G. 2004, "Whom to trust? Public concerns, late modern risks, and expert trustworthiness", Journal of agricultural & environmental ethics, vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 113-130. Shaw, A. 1999, "‘What are ‘they’ Doing to our Food?’: Public Concerns about Food in the UK", Sociological research online, vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 1-11. Kvaløy, B., Finseraas, H. & Listhaug, O. 2012, "The publics’ concern for global warming: A cross-national study of 47 countries", Journal of peace research, vol. 49, no. 1, pp. 11-22. 54 Jason T. Carmichael & Robert J. Brulle (2017) “Elite cues, media coverage, and public concern: an integrated path analysis of public opinion on climate change”, 2001–2013, Environmental Politics, 26:2, 232-252, DOI: 10.1080/09644016.2016.1263433 55 Ibid. 2017: 247
61
Joint Committee on Public Petitions – Review of the Terms of Reference
observes that since the procedural reforms of the late 1970s, use of term has become widespread in the case law. However, in keeping with other areas, the use of the concept of public interest in (UK) law lacks precise definition and has been the subject of polarised debate about its meaning and content. Although there have been a number of strands to the debate, the prevailing theme has been the legitimacy or otherwise of a presumed political community with shared values which sustains the ‘public interest’. 56
Reference to the public interest is also seen in legal cases involving media/journalism in the US. In one instance, arguments were provided for an expansive definition of “public concern” in the case of libel cases whereby such a definition would seek to embrace “all issues about which information is needed or appropriate to enable the members of society to cope with the exigencies of their period.“57
Another account notes that tension in law between ‘public’ and ‘private’ whereby the body of law referred to as public law may appear to contain the possibility of raising claims on behalf of the public(s), yet these are often constrained by legal conceptions of the meaning of ‘public’.58 In this regard, it is suggested that for public law there is need to 59
“…argue for its standards of openness, reasonableness, proportionality and the principles of human rights, the claim must be taken against a body that law considers to be public, or to be carrying out public functions.”
Other work in the area argues that the legal system has a central role in defining concepts such as ‘public interest’.60 It is argued that the concept of ‘public interest’ is or should be central to public service and as such is now merged with the concept of the ‘public good’. However, there are often competing definitions and interest in what ‘public interest’ or the ‘public good’ may mean. The very process of balancing, conducted through using a proportionality framework (the public interest test), is intrinsically intertwined with the concept of "public interest."61
56 Anthony, G. (2013). Public Interest and the Three Dimensions of Judicial Review. Northern Ireland Legal Quarterly, 64(2), 125-142. 57 Drechsel, R. E. (1991), Defamation cases since Dun & Bradstreet V. Greenmoss Builders, Federal Communications Law Journal, Vol. 43, No. 3. 58 McDermont, (2012) 59 McDermont, (2012: 223) 60 Orlova, A.V. (2017) "Public Interest," Judicial reasoning and violence of the Law: Constructing boundaries of the "Morally acceptable", Contemporary Readings in Law and Social Justice, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 51-80 61 Several steps of a proportionality analysis involve questions of "public interest." Orlova (2017), cited above, provides the follow sequencing of a proportionality analysis in the legal application area: “the first stage of proportionality analysis examines whether the relevant government action or agency is pursuing a pressing social objective. Furthermore, when the appropriateness of governmental means is examined, in addition to asking whether the means utili[s]ed are rationally connected to the stated governmental objective and whether the means chosen impair the right in question "as little as possible,"
62
Joint Committee on Public Petitions – Review of the Terms of Reference
In the Irish case, Cousins in reference to public interest law (PIL) makes the following comment:
“in its broader definition (PIL) does not specifically involve the courts but rather assists disadvantaged and vulnerable people in having an input into the democratic process through, for example, being involved in a process of law reform or by participating more fully in the outputs of the legislative process (i.e. by being more fully aware of rights and responsibilities created by legislation).”62
Contrasting the political and legal, Newman and Clark suggest that instead of the narrow definitions provided by the legal field, the concept of public concern/interest brings out front the unavoidable political nature of the ‘constitution of publicness’ whereby it is a quality that is:
“historically and socially variable – the combinations of things, sites, people, ideas and the rest are not permanently or intrinsically public: their constitution as public involves political struggles to make them so. They may also be de- publicised, and de-politicised (taken out of recognisable public concern).” 63
3.5. Planning
There is some research looking at the public interest in the context of planning. Although planning can be related to environmental concerns, the discipline of planning has a long history and is associated in the main with the built environment. In the planning discipline, the concept of public interest, in similarity with deliberations in law, can be viewed as ambiguous, but it nevertheless has and continues to be a primary consideration by professional planners.64 Some accounts articulate the difficulties with the concept through its universalising peoples in prescriptive terms without accounting for the obvious differences among people in cultural, social, and economic terms. Moreover, within planning it has been argued by some that ‘public interest’ is illusive
courts are also asked to determine whether the benefits of governmental measures outweigh the costs incurred by the infringement of a particular right in question. Thus, it becomes clear that courts are continuously called upon to make tough moral decisions about the limits of rights by engaging in examination of what is in the "public interest." Thus, the elusive concept of "public interest" becomes highly relevant when conceptualizing both the content as well as the extent of both individual as well as various group rights….Thus, conceptualizing the boundaries of "public interest" becomes key when it comes to…rights, as judicial narratives of inclusion and exclusion are revealed.” 62 Cousins, M. (2006) “How public interest law and litigation can make a difference to marginalised and vulnerable groups in Ireland”, in FLAC, Public Interest Law in Ireland – the reality and the potential, Conference Proceedings, Dublin: FLAC, 63 Newman J and Clarke J (2009: 2) Public, Politics and Power: Remaking the Public in Public Services. London: SAGE. 64 Chettiparamb, A. (2016) "Articulating ‘public interest’ through complexity theory", Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, vol. 34, no. 7, pp. 1284-1305.
63
Joint Committee on Public Petitions – Review of the Terms of Reference
without a clear substantive meaning. Within planning, the following five meanings have been associated with ‘public interest’:65
1. the public interest as commonly held value. 2. the public interest as the wise or superior interest. 3. the public interest as a moral imperative where an immutable universal moral standard is advanced. 4. the public interest as a balance of interests implying a negotiated consensus or a decision by a public body after due consideration; and 5. the public interest undefined as “public interest is what public interest does” In short, planners and planning academics have questioned the true meaning of ‘the public interest’ and without a substantive definition, it can be used by a wide range of actors reflecting their often-contrasting views which in practice differ as to its practical application.66 This therefore reflects similar findings made above in respect of political science and law.
3.6. Journalism
Although contested given media ownership and editorial influence, journalism has often been associated with as a fundamental practice upholding the public interest. This mainly relates to where it seeks to systematically establish the truth of a matter or events and issues “that matter to a society in a timely way”.67 Brock (2013) observes that any definition of the public interest in journalism should meet the following three broad requirements:
• The interests of a collective identity, a community small or large, beyond a single individual; • The advancing of some benefit or prevention of harm; and, • A presumption in favour of disclosure and free flow of information and a reluctance to limit communication. But despite this, as is often practiced, Morton and Aroney (2016) argue that journalists rarely seek to define the public interest in the context of their work. Moreover, Morrison and Svennieg (2007) found that while regulators and journalists own professional guidelines cite the imperative of public interest as justification for their work, there is no
65 Sorauf, FJ (1957) “The public interest reconsidered”, The Journal of Politics 19(4): 616–639. 66 Campbell, H, Marshall, R (2002) “Utilitarianism's bad breath? A re-evaluation of the public interest justification for planning”, Planning Theory 1(2): 163–187. Gant, J (2005) Rethinking the public interest as a planning concept. Plan Canada 45(2): 48–50. Moroni, S (2004) Towards a reconstruction of the public interest criterion. Planning Theory 3(2): 151–171 67 Brock, George. 2013. Out of Print. Newspapers, Journalism and the Business of News in the Digital Age. London: Kogan Page.
64
Joint Committee on Public Petitions – Review of the Terms of Reference
rigorous definition provided.68 These authors further observe that what is considered to be in the public interest is not invariable, but is culturally and historically contingent; it represents in their view “a document of the values of any particular society.”69
3.7. Privacy and freedom of information
Turning to references in the Irish context to public interest, McDonagh in her examination of the Freedom of Information (FOI) legislation states that “The concept of the public interest plays an important role in the overall scheme of the Irish FOI Act. Indeed, it can be argued that there is greater reliance on public interest tests in the Irish Act than in FOI legislation of other jurisdictions.”70
Under the FOI legislation, roughly half of the exemption provisions incorporate a public interest test.71 These public interest provisions allow the head of a public body or the Information Commissioner on appeal, to release records which would otherwise be exempt.72 But in her assessment, McDonagh concludes that “Although [public interest] is a concept of central importance to the operation of Act, the "public interest" is not defined in the Act. The notion of "public interest" is one which is notoriously vague. It has not yet been subjected to detailed examination by the Information Commissioner.”
Her suggestion is that:
“[t]hose engaged in decision-making with respect to the public interest must look beyond the exercise of weighing the advantages of disclosure against its disadvantages. Existing case law in cognate areas and overseas FOI decisions can be useful in determining where the public interest lies in a particular case. However, the overriding concern of decision makers must be to ensure that
68 Morrison, David E., and Michael Svennevig. 2007. “The Defence of Public Interest and the Intrusion of Privacy: Journalists and the Public.” Journalism 8 (1): 44–65. 69 Morrison and Svennevig, 2007: 55 70 McDonagh, M. (2008) “Freedom of Information and the Public Interest”, Open and Shut - Freedom of Information in Ireland, UCC Law Department Conference, October 16th and 17th, 1998 71 The following exemptions are subject to such a test under the FOI Acts: deliberation of public bodies (s.20); functions and negotiations of public bodies (section 21); information obtained in confidence (section 26); commercially sensitive information (section 27), research and natural resources (section 30) and financial and economic interests of the State and public bodies (section 31). A public interest test partly restricts the operation of the exemption concerning law enforcement and public safety (section 23(3)), that is to say, that while the withholding of the bulk of records relating to law enforcement and public safety is not subject to a public interest test, certain types of law enforcement and public safety records are subject to the operation of such a test. The public interest test in incorporated into most of the exemption provisions takes the form of providing that the exemption shall not apply where "in the opinion of the head [of the public body] concerned, the public interest would, on balance, be better served by granting than by refusing to grant the request. 72 Ibid.
65
Joint Committee on Public Petitions – Review of the Terms of Reference
determinations of where the public interest lies in a particular case must take of the purpose of the Act as well as constitutional imperatives”.73
3.8. Miscellaneous uses of the concepts
As is shown above, the concepts of public concern or public interest can be used interchangeably. They are applied to areas which would seem to impact on a large number of citizens, the parameters of numbers or spread of locations is not clear and there is no guide in this respect. However, the variety of issues seen in the literature beyond those discussed above is considerable including (but not limited to) white nationalism in the military,74 immigration,75 nanotechnology,76 fish consumption77 commercial funding of scientific research on alcohol addiction,78 corporate ownership and control of the media79 data and privacy rights within digital intermediaries80 alcohol policy,81 accountancy,82 competition policy,83 economic responses to the financial crisis84 and so forth.
73 McDonagh, M. (2008) “Freedom of Information and the Public Interest”, Open and Shut - Freedom of Information in Ireland, UCC Law Department Conference, October 16th and 17th, 1998 74 Ralston, R., Motta, M. & Spindel, J. (2020), "When OK is Not OK: Public Concern About White Nationalism in the US Military", Armed forces and society, , pp. 95327. 75 Hawkins, F. (1972) Canada and immigration: public policy and public concern, McGill-Queen's University Press, Montreal. McLaren, L., Boomgaarden, H. & Vliegenthart, R. (2018;2017), "News Coverage and Public Concern About Immigration in Britain", International journal of public opinion research, vol. 30, no. 2, pp. 173-193 van Oorschot, W. & Uunk, W. (2007) "Welfare Spending and the Public's Concern for Immigrants: Multilevel Evidence for Eighteen European Countries", Comparative politics, vol. 40, no. 1, pp. 63-82. Hawkins, F. (1972), Canada and immigration: public policy and public concern, McGill-Queen's University Press, Montreal. 76 Macoubrie, J. (2016:200);, "Nanotechnology: public concerns, reasoning and trust in government", Public understanding of science (Bristol, England), vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 221-241. 77 Röcklinsberg, H. & Röcklinsberg, H.(2015), "Fish Consumption: Choices in the Intersection of Public Concern, Fish Welfare, Food Security, Human Health and Climate Change", Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, vol. 28, no. 3, pp. 533-551. 78 Stenius, K. & Babor, T.F. (2010), "The alcohol industry and public interest science", Addiction (Abingdon, England), vol. 105, no. 2, pp. 191-198. 79 Croteau, D. & Hoynes, W. (2006), The business of media: corporate media and the public interest, 2nd edn, Pine Forge Press, Thousand Oaks, California. 80 Mansell, R. (2015) Info : the Journal of Policy, Regulation and Strategy for Telecommunications, Information and Media; Bradford Vol. 17, Iss. 6, 8-18. 81 Room, R. (2004), "Disabling the public interest: alcohol strategies and policies for England", Addiction, vol. 99, no. 9, pp. 1083-1089. 82 Burns, J. & Jollands, S. (2020) Acting in the public interest: accounting for the vulnerable, Accounting and Business Research, Volume 50, 2020 - Issue 5 83 Wilks, S. & Great Britain. Monopolies and Mergers Commission (1999), In the public interest: competition policy and the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, Manchester University Press, Manchester; New York;. 84 Donnelly, S. (2011), "The public interest and the economy in Europe in the wake of the financial crisis", European political science, vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 384-392.
66
Joint Committee on Public Petitions – Review of the Terms of Reference
3.9. Discussion
As is shown above, the notion of public concern and public interest is broad and vague in its application. It is rarely neatly defined, and where definitions are presented, they are normally bookended according to a specific discipline, statute, policy area, issue, social group etc. However, the concept is used widely and reflects matters which affect (or should affect, concern) a wide or broad segment of the ‘public’.
This trend is seen in Ireland and it is notable that the two primary pieces of emergency legislation enacted by the Oireachtas in response to the Covid-19 Pandemic - Health (Preservation and Protection and other Emergency Measures in the Public Interest) Act 2020; and, Emergency Measures in the Public Interest (Covid-19) Act 2020 - each refer to starkly to public interest in their titles but do not refine use of the term in their text. This underlines the importance of the concept but also its intangibility.
There are a number of trends that intertwined across the discussion and examples set out above.
1. In terms of quantification, there is no obvious numerical limit of persons above which denotes that an issue is one of public interest or public concern. However, from the exploration above, one could surmise that what constitutes an issue of public concern or public interest is wide in society, impacts on relatively substantial numbers across society or in one social grouping and/or could in theory affect members of the public who may not as yet been affected by the issue. 2. The concept of the public interest tends to be weighed against private interests in the context of a specific field (freedom of information, surveillance, environment etc) in its broader policy and legal context. In other words, each case should be judged on its merits. 3. There is no one indicator of a public interest or matter of public concern. Public interest issues are typically a collection of indicators which meet a threshold of what is and is not a public interest. This may for instance refer to an issue which affects a broad group of citizens, is also related to the ‘common’ or ‘public good’, has potential relevance for citizens beyond those directly affected at any one time etc. 4. The description or designation of an issue as one of public interest is tied to the context of the deliberating body/institution, whether that is an Oireachtas Committee or other public body with a defined policy or operational remit (Ombudsman, GSOC, HIQA etc.). This would seem to be key consideration in the context of the Joint Committee on Public Petitions.
67
Joint Committee on Public Petitions – Review of the Terms of Reference
5. There is also an argument to be made for not defining too strictly what is and what is not a public interest so as to allow each issue to be weighed individually as to its merits as an ‘undeniable’ matter of public concern or interest. As well as referring to issues of public interest or public concern, consideration of such issues should be only those that come within the remit of what the Houses of the Oireachtas can legislate on. This is a very broad canvass and comprises the policy areas covered by all Government Departments, their agencies and so forth. Moreover, it follows that ‘new’ policy issues or problems, that may have not yet been treated in policy or legislative terms but would come under the remit of the Oireachtas and/or a Government Department, would also fall within the remit of the Committee of Public Petitions, with the proviso that such issues could in theory be legislated on by the Houses of the Oireachtas.
68
Joint Committee on Public Petitions – Review of the Terms of Reference
4. What is policy?
This part of the paper explores the concept of policy and public policy with a particular focus on how it may be understood in practical terms. It looks first at the broader concept of ‘policy’ and follows this with an overview of ‘public policy’.
Responding to the question of ‘what is policy?’, Torjman stated there is no one simple answer. This, she argues, may be due in part to the fact that nearly all people are aware of, and come into contact with, policies of one form or other in their everyday lives.85 In a similar vein, Spicker (2006) commented for this reason that policy is “a very ambiguous term”.86 Torjman observes that even though policy is “all around us”, many people claim to have little or no understanding of what ‘policy’ is; she however observes the following:
“[I]n fact, many would say that they don’t “do policy.” Others maintain that it has only minor relevance to their work – or, for that matter, their lives. Not so. We literally eat, drink and breathe public policy.”87
With this in mind, Spicker (2006) stated that a policy in its simplest sense is a decision about a course of action. He also Spicker (2006) stated that a policy in observes that a policy is its simplest sense is a decision about a supposed to represent a set of course of action. decisions, which are interrelated and consistent with others.
But while it is true that a policy is a set of principles which guide decisions, actions and activities towards a certain preferred outcome, this is – in the present context – an oversimplification of the concept and does not account for how respond to and govern for, in complex modern societies, the wide range of policies that need to be deployed, updated, cancelled, replaced and so forth in responding to societal and public needs.
At the broader level, policy can therefore refer to a statement by government of what it intends to do, such as a law, regulation, ruling, decision, order, or a combination of these. Indeed, the lack of such statements may also be an implicit statement of policy.88
85 Torjman, S. (2005:01) What is policy?, Caledon Institute of Social Policy, Ottawa: Caledon Institute of Social Policy. 86 Spicker, P. (2006) Policy analysis for practice: applying social policy, Bristol: Policy Press, 87 Torjman, S. (2005:01) What is policy?, Caledon Institute of Social Policy, Ottawa: Caledon Institute of Social Policy. 88 Birkland, T.A. (2016) An Introduction to the Policy Process: Theories, Concepts, and Models of Public Policy Making, Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.
69
Joint Committee on Public Petitions – Review of the Terms of Reference
Policy can also refer to a set of actions taken by a government to control the system, to help solve problems within it or caused by it, or to help obtain benefits from it.89
In this light, Hogwood and Gunn (1984) identified the following ten meanings associated with ‘policy’, all of which relate to government activity and public administration:90
• As a label for a field of government activity and involvement; • an expression of the desired state of affairs or general purposes; • as specific proposals; • as the decisions of government; • as a formal authorisation; • a programme of activity – that is, a defined sphere of activity, involving particular measures; • as the output of an agency; • as an outcome; • a theory or model – assuming certain results from actions; and, • a process of decision making.
From the discussion of policy above, references were made to policy responding to public needs and the complexity of societies as well as governments, this introduces the concept of ‘public policy’, which is discussed below.
4.1. Public policy
Hogwood and Gunn (1984) state the most commonly encountered usage of the word policy is generally in the context broad statements about a government’s ‘economic policy’ or its ‘social policy’ or ‘foreign policy’ and so forth.91 Beyond policy therefore, public policy is viewed as a wider response to decision making in societies and specifically those decisions made by government and governmental authorities. In this context, Howlett and Cashhore refer to Dye’s well known, simple and short definition of public policy as “anything a government chooses to do or not to do’ (Dye, 1972: 2 cited in Howlett and Cashmore).92
While many organisations and actors create policies to which their members or users must adhere, public policies refer to those policies made by governments that affect and influence every or a large number of members of a nation-state and its jurisdiction. Such
89 Walker, W.E. (2000) "Policy analysis: a systematic approach to supporting policymaking in the public sector", Journal of multi-criteria decision analysis, vol. 9, no. 1‐3, pp. 11-27. 90 Ibid: 13-18. 91 Hogwood, B. & Gunn, L. (1984) Policy Analysis for the Real World, Oxford: Oxford University Press. 92 Howlett M., Cashore B. (2014) “Conceptualizing Public Policy”, In: Engeli, I., Allison C.R. (eds) Comparative Policy Studies. Research Methods Series. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
70
Joint Committee on Public Petitions – Review of the Terms of Reference
policies are public as opposed to private policies (which are those followed by non- state/government organisations or through public laws).
In this context, Torjman makes the following statement about the subjects and objects of public policy:93
“Public policy determines the quality of the air we breathe and the water we drink. It affects the food we eat – how it is harvested, where it is distributed and sold, and how much we pay. It controls the way in which we clean and monitor…the safety of the water supply. Public policy sets limits on air emissions… . Transportation is another example of a domain governed by a variety of public policies, most of which are concerned with the safety of travellers. Public policy also regulates the public airwaves by way of licensing and other rules…It determines the components of…tax regime – which combines income, sales and payroll taxes – and their respective levels. These are only a few examples of how public policy affects us both profoundly and pervasively. It influences virtually every aspect of our lives”.
The list of public policy areas is, not unsurprisingly, extensive but some of the main areas of public policy typically referred to include social policy, health policy, education policy, tax policy, arts and culture policy, tax policy, foreign policy, employment policy, industrial policy, agricultural policy, criminal justice policy and so on.94 These are also the broad areas that the respective sectoral committees in parliaments may concern themselves with.
There are of course different streams or domains of public policy and then subsets within each. In many instances, public policy areas are interrelated and overlapping. For example, ‘social policy’ can refer to one or more of policy and/or administrative practice in respect of social security, health administration, education, employment, community care and housing. It also relates to social ‘problems’: including criminology, disability, unemployment, mental health, old age. Moreover, social policy also encompasses issues relating to social disadvantage including race, gender, poverty and so forth.95
Public policy can also be differentiated as to whether it is focused on administrative practice or the content of specific policies.
93 Torjman, S. (2005:01) 94 Pierre, J. & Peters, B.G. (2005) Governing complex societies: trajectories and scenarios, Basingstoke, Hampshire; New York, N.Y: Palgrave Macmillan, Houndmills. 95 Spicker, 2006
71
Joint Committee on Public Petitions – Review of the Terms of Reference
From their review of literature, Hogwood and Gunn identify the following elements that characterise ‘public policy’:96
• Policy is distinguishable from ‘decision’; • It is less readily distinguishable from ‘administration’; • It involves behaviour as well as intentions; • Policy involve inaction as well as action; • Policies have outcomes which may or may not have been foreseen; • It is a purposive course of action, but purpose may be defined retrospectively; • Policy arises from a process over time; • It involves intra- and inter-organisation relationship(s); • Public policy involves a key, but not exclusive, role for public agencies; and • Policy is subjectively defined (by the individual).
Following on from the definitions in the box across97, a more encompassing definition of public policy is provided by Knoepfel et al (2007:24) who view public policy as the following:98
96 1984: 19-23 97 References for quotes in box: Birkland, T. (2001) An introduction of the policy process, London: Sage DeLeon, P. & Vogenbeek, D.M. (2007) “The policy sciences at a crossroads”, in Fishchler, F., Miller, G.J. and Mara, S.S., Handbook of public policy analysis: Theory, politics and methods, London: Taylor and Francis Hill, M. (1997) The policy process: a reader, (second edition), London: Harvester Wheatsheaf. 98 Knoepfel, P, Larrue, C, Varone, F, & Hill, M (2007) Public policy analysis, Bristol: Policy Press.
72
Joint Committee on Public Petitions – Review of the Terms of Reference
“…a series of intentionally coherent decisions or activities taken or carried out be different public – and sometimes – private actors, whose resources, institutional links and interests vary, with a view to resolving in a targeted manner a problem that is politically defined as collective in nature. This group of decisions and activities gives rise to formalised actions of a more or less Applied definitions of public policy restrictive mature that are often
“Stated most simply, public policy is the aimed at modifying the behaviour sum of government activities, whether of social groups presumed to be pursued directly or through agents, as at the root of, or able to solve, those activities have on influence on the the collective action to be lives of citizens” (Birkland, 2001) resolved (target groups) in the interest of the social groups who “public policy issues are no longer the suffer the negative effects of the exclusive domain of specified problem in question (final governmental units... Rather, they tend to beneficiaries).” reside in issue networks, including governmental units…; these are constantly This conception of public policy seen to be interacting with important non- refers implicitly to both legislative profit organi[s]ations on both the national and administrative activities and local levels, and various aimed at the resolution of ‘real representations from the private sector as problems’.
well. (DeLeon, P. & Vogenbeek, D.M, Knoepfel et al (2007) also note 2007: 11) that a public policy is typically
“A set of interrelated decisions take by a constituted by a number of political actor or group of actors elements, each of these is concerning the selection of goals and the outlined in turn below in Box 2.99 means of achieving the within a specified situation where these decisions should, in principle, be within the power of these actors to achieve” (Jenkins 1997:32 in Hill 1997)
99 Adapted from Knoepfel, P, Larrue, C, Varone, F, & Hill, M (2007) Public policy analysis, Bristol: Policy Press.
73
Joint Committee on Public Petitions – Review of the Terms of Reference
Box 2: Typical constituents of public policy A solution to a public problem A public policy in this respect may aim to solve a social problem which is acknowledged by political actors as public and may require the (re-)establishment of the communication between several social actors that has broken down or is under threat. Thus, it presupposes the recognition of a problem, that is, “a socially unsatisfactory situation whose resolution is subject to action by the public sector.” The existence of target groups at the root of a public problem Most public policy aims to channel the behaviour of target groups, either directly or by affecting these actors’ environment. Intentional coherence A public policy is generally created with a given direction. It presupposes a goal or outcome which the policy will attempt to apply in its attempt to resolve the public problem in question. It also assumes that the decisions or actions taken are connected. The existence of several decisions and activities Public policies by and large are characterised by a group of actions that are more than single or specific decisions. It defines a social problem and follows it with a series of actions that may be framed by legislation. Intervention programme The groups of decisions and actions are concrete and specific in that the relate to a programme and its application. A programme of interventions is only called a policy when it has outcomes and includes some aspect of implementation. The key role of public actors A group of decisions and actions can only be considered as a public policy to the extent that those who take the decisions act in the capacity of public actors. In other words, the involvement of actors belonging to the political-administrative system or private actors with the legitimacy to decide or act on the basis of a delegation based on a legal rule is essential. If this condition is not fulfilled, a group of decisions of this kind (which can, in fact, also impose restrictions on third parties) will be considered as a ‘corporative (associative)’ or even ‘private’ policy. Existence of formalised measures A public policy therefore assumes the production of outputs intended to impact on the behaviour of groups or individuals. The definition assumes the existence of tangible implementation phase for measure decided on as part of the policy. Decisions and activities that impose constraints The public action is deemed necessary by virtue of the legitimate authority assumed by public power. Whether they concern the development of conventional public activities or contractual activities the forms of public action adopted today are as likely to be incentive based as coercive. Source: Knoepfel et al (2007)
Nevertheless, as Birkland observes, there is no one definition of public policy that can be developed which would reach a consensus among academics, policy practitioners,
74
Joint Committee on Public Petitions – Review of the Terms of Reference
policymakers and stakeholders. 100 He, however, discerns the following key and broad attributes of public policy:
• Policy is made in response to some sort of problem that requires attention; • Policy is made on the “public’s” behalf; • Policy is oriented toward a goal or desired state, such as the solution of a problem; • Policy is ultimately made by governments, even if the ideas come from outside government or through the interaction of government and nongovernmental actors; • Policy is interpreted and implemented by public and private actors who have different interpretations of problems, solutions, and their own motivations; and, • Policy is what the government chooses to do or not to do.
4.2. Discussion
Policy and public policy as shown above are two broad concepts, the first denoting the intentional direction of travel of decision making including aims and, the second, refers in the main to the policies adopted and pursued by governments, including their implementation and administration.
From the foregoing, it is evident that one or more aspects of public policy impacts on most if not all citizens either directly or indirectly. However, as noted, policy and public policy are ambiguous terms for which no one definition will achieve consensus among the wide range of actors concerned.
Public policy is associated with government and includes decisions, proposals, legislation, authorisations, activities, outputs, decision making processes, consultation etc. It can involve intervention, implementation, funding, regulation and evaluation among other things. In other words, it is a very broad church before looking at particular strands of public policy such as transport policy, labour market policy etc, and further drilling down to subsets of these specific policy areas.
Importantly, public policies encompass positive and negative decisions as to pursuing a course of action on the part of government, its various agencies or by one or parts of the wider public service. It also comprises instances where no decisions are made in respect of a (potential) policy issue or issue of public interest. Public policy can focus on policy problems/issues as well as solutions. It can involve public and sometimes private actors depending on the policy area and purpose. It can refer to elected and career officials and non-governmental actors involved in public policy delivery. Ultimately public policy is
100 Birkland, T. (2001) An introduction of the policy process, London: Sage
75
Joint Committee on Public Petitions – Review of the Terms of Reference
carried out for and on behalf of the public, hence its name. The public in this sense can include large proportions of the citizenry as well as specific social groupings that a policy area is focused on.
This discussion has not looked at specific policy areas or fields. It relates to the focus of the Committee toward the wider notion of all public policies, that is, public policy areas that are within the power of the Houses of the Oireachtas to legislate on.
This suggests that Committee’s remit on public policy is at least as broad as the policy horizon of the sum of government departments, their units, agencies, legislative framework and proposals, policy networks and so forth. It also follows that issues of policy may also include those issues, which are a matter of public concern or public interest in the view of the Committee, that have yet to be legislated on or are new to the public policy agenda. This policy focus of the Committee also can refer to high level policy frameworks and strategies, policy implementation, evaluation and broader public administration and public service delivery as it relates to a policy followed by the government.
76
Joint Committee on Public Petitions – Review of the Terms of Reference
5. Potential applications for consideration by the Committee
From the foregoing discussion, the analysis presented suggests a number of broad things in respect of both matters of public concern or interest and thereafter policy.
Firstly, the remit of the Committee in respect of matters of public concern and interest, and, policy, is broad and limited only by what is in the power of the Houses of the Oireachtas to legislate on.
Secondly, the Committee differs from ‘sectoral’ or other ‘standing’ Committees with respect to its broad remit and this would seem to be intentional given the rationale for the establishment of the Committee and role of parliamentary petitions systems in other jurisdictions.
Third, the discussion presented in this paper suggests that defining public interest or policy too rigidly would not be in keeping with the intention of the Committee’s existence and would also lead to some areas which could be construed as being of public interest or a policy issue being placed outside the reach of the Committee.
However, both the concept of public interest and policy, due to the breadth of the Oireachtas’s potential oversight and scrutiny authority, suggest that issues that the Committee considers should be subject to an assessment of the extent to which they are either a matter of genuine (and potential) public concern or of public policy.
Ultimately, given the breadth of potential issues, the Committee would need to consider each case on its merits and in keeping with standing orders would consult with the relevant Oireachtas committees.
77
Joint Committee on Public Petitions – Review of the Terms of Reference
The following is an outline of ways in which the Committee might understand both public interest and policy in its working application and understanding of the terms – in both cases, the approach adopted is to reflect the broad reach of Committee’s sphere of activity:
1. Issues of public concern or public interest are those that in the view of the Committee are within the power of the Houses of the Oireachtas to consider and potentially legislate on and which meet one or more of the following thresholds: • impact or have the potential to impact on a sizable number of the public, including specific social groupings and minority groupings; • reflects the shared experiences, treatment or concerns of a collection of citizens, members of the public, as opposed to private interests; • scrutinising or increasing knowledge of the issue may lead to benefits for the public or common good; and, • is related to the focus area of a government department or its agencies or contracted service providers. 2. Policy issues are understood as those that in the view of the Committee are within the powers of the Houses of the Oireachtas to consider and potentially legislate on and which meet or more of the following conditions: • is related to the focus area of a government department or its agencies or contracted providers; • impacts, or has the potential to impact, on members of the public; • concerns, but is not limited to, government, related agencies and contract service providers in respect of the legislative basis, planning, management, implementation, resourcing and review of public administration and public service delivery.
78
Joint Committee on Public Petitions – Review of the Terms of Reference
Appendix B: Submission from the Irish Ombudsman Forum
Martin Browne, T.D. Cathaoirleach, An Comhchoiste um Achainíocha ón bPobal Tithe an Oireachtais Teach Laighean Baile Átha Cliath 2. D02 X2R0
15 Feabhra 2021
A Chathaoirligh, a chara,
Táimid buíoch den Choiste as an deis seo a thabhairt dúinn aighneacht a chur faoina bhráid maidir lena Théarmaí Tagartha. Áirítear ar Fhóram na nOmbudsman na hOifigí
Ombudsman uile sa Stát, eadhon an Ombudsman d’Óglaigh na hÉireann, an tOmbudsman do Leanaí, an Coimisinéir Teanga, an tOmbudsman um Sheirbhísí
Airgeadais agus um Pinsean, Ombudsman an Phreasa, Coimisiún Ombudsman an Gharda
Síochána agus an tOmbudsman. Déileálann gach ceann de na hOifigí sin le gearáin ina réimsí féin, agus féachann siad le haon chliseadh a tharlaíonn do dhaoine aonair a leigheas agus, ag an am céanna, teipeanna córasacha a shainaithint agus a chur ina gceart. Bíonn na hOifigí oibiachtúil agus gearáin á mbreithniú acu agus is mar abhcóidí ar son chothrom na Féinne a fheidhmíonn siad, seachas mar abhcóidí do ghearánaigh.
79
Joint Committee on Public Petitions – Review of the Terms of Reference
Go ginearálta, níl cumhachtaí ceangailteacha dlí ag Oifigí Ombudsman na seirbhíse poiblí; ina ionad sin, is amhlaidh a dhéanann siad moltaí. Bíonn siad ag brath ar an gcaoi ar féidir leo dul i gcion ar na heagraíochtaí stáit, ar a naisc lena bParlaimint – Tithe an
Oireachtais i gcás na tíre seo. I gcás nach bhfuil soláthraí seirbhíse poiblí toilteanach moltaí a chur i bhfeidhm, is iondúil go mbíonn de rogha ag an Oifig Ombudsman tuarascáil faoi sin a chur faoi bhráid Thithe an Oireachtais.
Is minic a bhíonn amhras ann i dtaobh a éifeachtaí atá an cur chuige sin. I ndaonlathas aibí mar atá againne, feidhmíonn sé ar bhealach an-éifeachtach. Le blianta fada glacadh le beagnach 100% de na moltaí a rinne Oifig an Ombudsman; eisceacht amháin ba ea na moltaí a rinneadh sa tuarascáil “Lost at Sea” ón iarOmbudsman, Emily O’Reilly. Le blianta beaga anuas, cuireadh an cás eisceachtúil sin féin ina cheart. Mar sin féin, ní chuirtear na moltaí go léir i bhfeidhm, fiú tar éis don soláthraí seirbhíse glacadh leo.
Sa chás nach bhfuil cumhachtaí atá infheidhmithe le dlí ag Oifig Ombudsman, tá tábhacht mhór leis go mbeadh an Oifig Ombudsman in ann dul os comhair Thithe an
Oireachtais chun a chinntiú go mbíonn sásamh le fáil ag lucht úsáide seirbhísí. In Éirinn, níl traidisiún ann go dtuairiscíonn sealbhóirí Oifige do sheisiún iomlánach den Dáil nó den
Seanad. Ciallaíonn sé sin go bhfuil sé ríthábhachtach go ndéanann Coiste Oireachtais na tuarascálacha a bhreithniú. Is féidir déileáil sna tuarascálacha seo le gearán sonrach, i gcás nár glacadh le moltaí; is féidir déileáil iontu freisin le téama áirithe nó le fadhbanna córasacha, agus áirítear tuarascálacha bliantúla orthu freisin.
Tá sé tábhachtach gur féidir leis na coistí ábhair ábhartha na tuarascálacha a bhreithniú.
Faigheann beagnach gach Coiste Oireachtais tuarascálacha maidir leis na seirbhísí poiblí agus príobháideacha ilchineálacha a thagann faoi scáth bhaill Fhóram na nOmbudsman.
Chomh maith le fianaise a chur ar fáil faoi obair na nOifigí, cuireann sé foinse an- luachmhar faisnéise ar fáil do na Coistí a chabhraíonn leo ina ról grinnscrúdúcháin.
80
Joint Committee on Public Petitions – Review of the Terms of Reference
Mar sin féin, sa bhreis ar an deis seo dul cúrsaí a chíoradh le Coistí, ní foláir a aithint gur minic a bhaineann obair bhaill an Fhóraim le réimsí ilchineálacha, agus is gá lárphointe a bheith ann chun breithniú leathan a dhéanamh ar na saincheisteanna a thagann chun tosaigh.
Tá an Fóram tar éis a áiteamh go mion minic freisin go ndéanfadh Coiste amháin maoirseacht ar ghníomhaíochtaí na nOifigí Ombudsman trí chéile, chun deimhin a dhéanamh de go bhfuil modh sásaimh le fáil, ar bhealach cuimsitheach, ag daoine sa
Stát agus go mbíonn an oiread deiseanna agus is féidir ann tabhairt faoi fhoghlaim agus forbairt. D’fhonn a chinntiú go bhfuil na hOifigí Ombudsman neamhspleách ar na seirbhísí ina ndlínse, is é an cleachtas idirnáisiúnta atá ag teacht i réim anois gurb iad na
Coistí a théann i mbun reachtaíocht a fhorbairt, sealbhóirí Oifige a earcú agus buiséid a shocrú agus a chur faoi ghrinnscrúdú. Meastar go bhfuil an cur chuige sin ag teacht le scaradh na gcumhachtaí.
Ó rinne an Fóram an t-ábhar seo a chíoradh go deireanach leis an gCoiste, d’fhorbair an
Coimisiún Eorpach maidir le Daonlathas tríd an Dlí (Coimisiún na Veinéise) na
“Prionsabail maidir le Cosaint agus Cur Chun Cinn Institiúid an Ombudsman”
(“Prionsabail na Veinéise”). Rinne Comhairle na hEorpa na Prionsabail sin a ghlacadh agus a fheabhsú ina dhiaidh sin, agus ghlac Comhthionól Ginearálta na Náisiún Aontaithe iad i mí na Nollag 2020 i dtairiscint a thionscain Éire i gcomhar le roinnt tíortha eile. Is ionann na Prionsabail agus na chéad chaighdeáin a aithnítear go hidirnáisiúnta le haghaidh institiúidí Ombudsman na seirbhíse poiblí.
Deirtear i bPrionsabal 20 – “Tuairisceoidh an tOmbudsman don Pharlaimint ar ghníomhaíochtaí na hInstitiúide uair sa bhliain ar a laghad. Sa tuarascáil seo, féadfaidh an tOmbudsman an Pharlaimint a chur ar an eolas i dtaobh neamh-chomhlíonadh ag an riarachán poiblí. Tuairisceoidh an Oifig Ombudsman freisin ar shaincheisteanna ar leith, de réir mar is cuí leis an Oifig Ombudsman. Cuirfear tuarascálacha na hOifige
Ombudsman ar fáil go poiblí. Cuirfidh na húdaráis iad sin san áireamh go cuí.”
81
Joint Committee on Public Petitions – Review of the Terms of Reference
Dá gcuirfí an ceart rochtana ag Oifigí Ombudsman na hÉireann san áireamh i dTéarmaí
Tagartha an Choiste, dhéanfaí deimhin de go gcomhlíonfar an riachtanas sin. Iarrann an
Fóram go leathnófaí na Téarmaí Tagartha freisin chun go mbeidh forléargas ag an gCoiste ar aon Oifig Ombudsman in Éirinn, nach dtagann faoi mhaoirseacht Coiste
Oireachtais ar leith cheana féin, agus chun go mbeidh ar a chumas moltaí a dhéanamh maidir le forbairt agus athchóiriú.
Ba dheas leis an bhFóram bualadh leis an gCoiste chun na moltaí seo a phlé.
Sinne le meas,
Rónán Ó Domhnaill Peter Tyndall Ger Deering
An Coimisinéir Teanga Ombudsman Ombudsman Seirbhísí Cathaoirleach Airgeadais agus Pinsean
Alan Mahon Peter Feeney Niall Muldoon
Ombudsman d’Óglaigh na Ombudsman an Phreasa Ombudsman do Leanaí hÉireann
Ms. Justice Mary Ellen Ring
Cathaoirleach, Coimisiún Ombudsman An Gharda Síochána
82
Joint Committee on Public Petitions – Review of the Terms of Reference
Martin Browne, T.D. Chairman of the Joint Committee on Public Petitions Houses of the Oireachtas Leinster House Dublin 2. D02 X2R0
15 February 2021
A Chathaoirligh, a chara,
We are grateful to the Committee for this opportunity to make a submission regarding its Terms of Reference. The Ombudsman Forum includes all of the
Ombudsman Offices in the State, comprising the Defence Forces Ombudsman, the Children’s Ombudsman, an Coimisinéir Teanga , the Financial Services and
Pensions Ombudsman, the Press Ombudsman, the Garda Síochána Ombudsman
Commission and the Ombudsman. Each of the Offices deals with complaints in their respective fields, and seeks to remedy any failures for individuals while also identifying systemic failings and addressing them. The Offices are objective in their consideration of complaints and function, not as advocates for complainants, but as advocates for fairness.
83
Joint Committee on Public Petitions – Review of the Terms of Reference
In general, public service Ombudsman Offices do not have legally binding powers, rather, they make recommendations. They rely on moral suasion and critically, on their links with their Parliament, in our case, the Oireachtas. Where a public service provider does not agree to implement recommendations, they usually have the option of reporting to the Oireachtas.
There is often scepticism about how effective this approach is. In practice, in a mature democracy such as ours, it is highly effective. For many years the Office of the Ombudsman had an almost 100% acceptance rate for its recommendations, the one exception being in respect of the “Lost at Sea” report by former Ombudsman Emily O’Reilly. In recent years, even this latter anomaly has been redressed. However, not all recommendations are implemented having been accepted.
Where an Ombudsman does not have legally enforceable powers, access to the
Oireachtas is a vital component in ensuring that redress for service users is delivered. In Ireland, there is no tradition of Office holders reporting to a plenary session of the Dáil or Seanad. This means that it is essential that the reports be considered by a Committee. These reports can be about a particular complaint, where recommendations have not been accepted, they can be thematic or about systemic issues, and they also include annual reports.
It is important that reports can be considered by the relevant subject committees. Virtually every Oireachtas Committee can expect to receive reports about the broad span of public and private services covered by the members of the Ombudsman Forum. As well as providing evidence about the work of the
Offices, it offers the Committees a highly valuable source of information to assist them in their scrutinising role.
84
Joint Committee on Public Petitions – Review of the Terms of Reference
However, in addition to this opportunity to engage with Committees, it is important to recognise that the work of Forum members is often cross-cutting, and their needs to be a locus for broader consideration of issues raised.
The Forum has also consistently argued for a single Committee to have oversight of Ombudsman activity, to ensure that there is comprehensive access to redress for people in the State and that opportunities for learning and development are maximised. In order to ensure that Ombudsman Offices are independent from the services in their jurisdiction, international practice increasingly sees a lead being taken by Committees in developing legislation, recruitment of Office holders and budget setting and scrutiny. This is seen as being consistent with the separation of powers.
Since the Forum last engaged with the Committee on this topic, the European
Commission for Democracy Through Law, (the Venice Commission) has developed the “Principles on the Protection and Promotion of the Ombudsman
Institution (“the Venice Principles”). These have subsequently been adopted and enhanced by the Council of Europe, and were adopted in December 2020 by the
UN General Assembly in a motion co-sponsored by Ireland. The Principles form the first internationally recognised standards for public service Ombudsman institutions.
Principle 20 states that – “The Ombudsman shall report to Parliament on the activities of the Institution at least once a year. In this report, the Ombudsman may inform Parliament on lack of compliance by the public administration. The
Ombudsman shall also report on specific issues, as the Ombudsman sees appropriate. The Ombudsman’s reports shall be made public. They shall be duly taken into account by the authorities.”
85
Joint Committee on Public Petitions – Review of the Terms of Reference
Including the right of access by Irish Ombudsman Offices within the Terms of
Reference of the Committee would ensure that this requirement is met. The
Forum requests that the Terms of Reference should also be extended to enable the Committee to maintain an overview of any Ombudsman Office in Ireland, which is not already subject to oversight by a specific Oireachtas Committee, and to make proposals for development and reform.
The Forum would be happy to meet with the Committee to discuss these proposals.
Sinne le Meas,
Rónán Ó Domhnaill Peter Tyndall Ger Deering
An Coimisinéir Teanga Ombudsman Financial Services and Pensions Ombudsman Chair
Alan Mahon Peter Feeney Niall Muldoon
Ombudsman for the Press Ombudsman Ombudsman for Children Defence Forces
Ms. Justice Mary Ellen Ring
Chair, Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission
86
Joint Committee on Public Petitions – Review of the Terms of Reference
Appendix C: Submission from Mr. David Lowe
Oireachtas: Joint Committee on Public Petitions.
Submission to the review of the Terms of Reference of the JPCC.
David Lowe. (Ref:JCPP_I_2020_7)
Preliminary remarks:
The introduction of the public petitions process into the Irish constitutional and institutional environment marked a substantial advance in the domain of the rights of the citizen. It created a framework which was designed to encourage citizens to step forward and take a more active role within the body politic in a way which established, not only a link, but a two-way process between the parliament and those it was elected to represent, in all their diversity.
The Standing Joint Committee on Public Petitions was appointed in order to provide a focal point for the petitions process, for the better administration and management of this process, and to provide a democratic and representative forum within which citizens have the opportunity to present their concerns. In so doing, it established an open and transparent mechanism for greater participatory democracy in Ireland, which in itself can contribute to the reinforcement of representative democracy.
In recognition of the fact that Ireland was not alone in this endeavour, and that Irish citizens are also citizens of the European Union, a specific provision was made which foresees engagement with the Petitions Committee of the European Parliament if it so wishes. Indeed, as a result of this provision, certain petitions have, over the years, been the subject of discussion in both institutions, where the subject matter was deemed to merit this course of action, and this has been to the benefit of petitioners.
Many, though not all, parliaments within the European Union, in addition to the European Parliament and the Oireachtas have established petitions committees – most notably the Scottish Parliament, the UK Parliament in Westminster, the Portuguese, Austrian, German, Luxembourg and Belgian parliaments. Each operates within its own historical and political parameters and have established their own rules of procedure and standing orders.
Since its establishment in 2012, the Petitions Committee of the Oireachtas has slightly modified its rules of procedure subsequent to internal reports and observations, notably
87
Joint Committee on Public Petitions – Review of the Terms of Reference
in January 2016, when the then Chairman, Padraig MacLochlainn TD, introduced the committee’s proposals in order to make it more efficient and effective.
His report, and the most recent annual report during the last legislature, referenced the variety, complexity and diversity of topics which have been addressed by citizens and they implicitly demonstrate the usefulness to Irish citizens that the petitions process provides. However, even though the committee has quite clearly provided a voice for citizens which adds credibility to their successful claims, this observer considers that better use could be made of the potential of the committee to raise its legitimate profile a step further.
Background requirements:
This depends, in the first instance, on the members of the committee itself, who are responsible for the decisions which are taken and who provide the institution’s public face of the petitions process. In order to do this to the best of their ability, as is the case for other standing committees, they require an efficient secretariat of committee clerks and assistants, preferably with some legal background and parliamentary experience, who should be able to conduct the preliminary investigations and assessments which are required for each petition and who ensure the efficient registration and administration of each petition, as well as organising the meetings of the committee and the liaison with petitioners and government departments, public offices and outside bodies and associations.101
It also depends upon the existence of an electronic petitions platform which should be directly accessible to the public on the homepage of the Oireachtas web site, which is simple to use, visibly attractive and which contains important ‘back office’ functions ensuring a more efficient administration, verification and reporting function from the metadata. It should allow members of the committee direct access to the petition and all related documents and information, while providing public information on petitions received and the possibility of adding support to existing admissible petitions.102
Social media platforms, which function from the parliamentary communications department, are also of considerable importance for raising awareness of the activities of the petitions committee and its members, providing they are properly mediated, as they can multiply the dissemination of information effectively from committee meetings, often relayed by civil society platforms and petitioners’ organising committees.
101 The Bundestag Petitions Committee has a secretariat of 80 staff; the House of Commons, under the authority of senior clerks some 15 researchers and assistants sustain the work of the committee. 102 The petitions website of the House of Commons was developed by unboxed.co and it is very easy to use and access; the European Parliament also has a good web-portal for petitions which is being upgraded.
88
Joint Committee on Public Petitions – Review of the Terms of Reference
Because of the range of issues which the Petitions Committee is likely to confront during the period of its mandate, it is important that it has a clear and regular contact with other standing committees with their own expertise and legislative competence, both as a means to inform other committees of the concerns of Irish citizens and as a means of ensuring input from other committees into its own work and meetings when this may be useful to the petitioners.103 This could be particularly advantageous when reports are compiled and discussed in plenary session.
As regards its relations with the different Ombudsman Offices, the distinction in roles and responsibility must be made particularly clear to the public, bearing in mind that the Petitions Committee provides the various Ombudsmen/women with an important platform for the delivery of their reports, but it does not interfere nor have competence for the offices themselves. On the basis of the reports however, it may pick up on issues it feels are of a general political importance for the parliament.
Important Observations:
The public should be informed and made aware of what powers the Petitions Committee has and what the limits are on its activity in terms that they can easily comprehend. This is important in order that unreasonable expectations are not raised in the eyes of the public, and they have a clear idea of the outcome of the process for them.
The credibility of the Committee and its work depends upon what the public sees as being simple, fair and transparent procedures, and clearly defined options, concerning the way in which individual petitions may be researched, investigated and concluded. This becomes particularly important when petitions which have been declared admissible do not obtain the considered the support of the committee following their investigation; none the less so when they are supported, and key recommendations made to competent public and governmental authorities.
It is understood that the Petitions Committee has the broad authority to take any appropriate actions it deems suitable in response to a petition received. But the remedies it may propose are non-judicial remedies for the petitioner which, more often than not, will depend on the cooperation of all interested parties in finding an agreed solution. The petition will, in effect, be a catalyser which brings different parties together104. The Petitions Committee will be able to invite the petitioner, hear their case,
103 The European Parliament and some national parliaments may organise joint meetings with other committees on topics of major significance.
104 The rules of procedure indicate that before submitting a petition, the petitioner should have already tried to resolve the issue through other (unspecified) channels or complaints procedures. This observer believes
89
Joint Committee on Public Petitions – Review of the Terms of Reference
- in the presence and with the response of public authorities if necessary, raise questions resulting from such deliberations and make constructive recommendations. It cannot and should not allocate blame.
Such work also fulfils the accountability function, and the scrutiny function of the parliament, and the petitions process can be in many cases a reality check on the application of the law.
Significantly, the petitions process is not an “adjudicating process”105 and investigations by the committee, on behalf of the petitioners, do not lead to prosecutions; they lead to clarifications and eventually to recommendations being made. This can be in the form of a letter from the committee to a responsible minister, or, on more significant cases, by a report and resolution on the floor of the House.
The courts exist, and due process is warranted, for any matters which require legal redress and compensation and petitions which stray into this area are to be considered inadmissible and petitioners informed accordingly.
All members should be aware of the sensitivity of many petitions and the need to treat all petitioners with equal respect in their public pronouncements as a result.
Final remarks & Recommendations:
The Chairman of the Public Petitions Committee has requested suggestions that may improve public engagement with the committee. For the public to make best use of the committee they have to be made aware of its importance to the Oireachtas itself, and of the fact that a petition can actually deliver tangible results. The more the Oireachtas – and indeed the Government, pay attention to petitions and their recommendations, the more citizens will take notice of them.
Members of the Oireachtas and past and new members of the Committee will have their own ideas built on their own experience. This paper is intended to complement those ideas by making a few suggestions based upon international comparison and perceived ‘best practice’. There appears to be a feeling that the committee has not fully lived up to the expectations placed upon it when it was launched in 2012. Indeed, creating such a committee from scratch was a difficult task but already lessons have been learned and
that this should be subject to the discretion of the committee on issues which the committee deems to be of particular public significance, or the committee may be seen only as an citizens’ appeals body. 105 See: Judgement of the Supreme Court in Maguire v Ardagh (April 2002) and Houses of the Oireachtas (Compellability, Privileges and immunity of Witnesses) Act 1997.
90
Joint Committee on Public Petitions – Review of the Terms of Reference
some implemented. This is in the nature of things as the practice of petitioning evolves and procedures and presentational aspects must also evolve with it while remaining visibly fair and just and well-tuned in to the ambitions of the citizens and their parliament.
When reading the ‘Orders of Reference’ and the information contained in the online ‘Introduction to Petitions’ and ‘Frequently asked questions’, it is apparent that the main information is described in the negative, rather than as an encouragement to petition the parliament and why it is important to do so.
• Regarding the admissibility of petitions for example – paragraph 127, section 1) the title is “Admissibility of Petitions”, it then says a petition is admissible unless it- ……. • Under section 2, regarding a local or regional matter, or regulatory public bodies, the petitioner has to be exhausted before confiding his concerns to the parliament….. • Refers already to issues which are under dispute…… • Again, in the introduction to online petitions, under the admissibility criteria six of the eight bullet points are negative….in addition it says petitions must not contain the name or names of individuals, which is in itself confusing,106 • Regarding the addition of signatures of support, (in the FAQ) this is not possible after a petition has been tabled, which may destroy the dynamic of the process and prevent the parliament being aware of the feeling behind the subject which has been registered. There is no reference to this in the rules of procedure however, and so it is presumed that this is because the electronic platform is not programmed properly to allow the addition of signatures. • The FAQ does not actually respond at all to what the Joint Committee may be petitioned about in spite of the ‘question’: it limits itself to a purely formal response in the negative, whereas it could suggest such matters as “environmental issues such as waste management, water supply and distribution, strategic planning decisions regarding a lack of environmental impact assessments, issues related to climate change and the COP agenda, potentially illegal infrastructure or road-building projects, agriculture, justice and home affairs, transport policy, social affairs and education etc….” • One understands that the process is not complicated as long as the standard form is used, yet some petitions may be more complex and require the submission of
106 If there is an issue about potentially defamatory remarks this point is redundant but adds to the negativity in the description.
91
Joint Committee on Public Petitions – Review of the Terms of Reference
detailed reports and statistics and these should be accommodated; therefore, what is important is not the form but the key aspects regarding the petitioner him/herself, name contact numbers and address etc and the pertinence of documents which they may wish to make available to the committee. • Regarding ‘What happens next’ this should be addressed earlier so a petitioner knows what will happen to the petition – what he/she should expect from the process. It is not so inspiring to be told that, having gone to all the trouble, the petition may be referred to another committee for consideration and report back. • Paragraph 128 regarding ‘action in relation to petitions’ remains very vague and does not give a clear idea of the options available, either to members or to potential petitioners, as well as being very limited in scope. It could for example indicate the following without radically changing the process: 1. Once the petition is declared admissible it shall be analysed and investigated by the committee and the petitioner informed regarding what follow-up action is to be taken, this may include the following, depending on the subject raised by the petition and its complexity:
A The petitioner may be invited to present the petition during the course of a committee meeting, where other interested parties may also be present, and respond to members questions, the objective being to further inform members of the implications of the petition and to seek to identify solutions or non-judicial remedies.
B The petition may be forwarded to a standing committee with responsibilities for the subject of the petition, or a government department, for an opinion before further deliberation.
C The Committee may decide to seek authorisation to conduct a mission to the area concerned by the petition to meet with local people and civil society, local authorities, or other interested persons and report back to the committee with recommendations.
D The Committee, following its investigations, may decide to prepare a report accompanied by recommendations for debate in a plenary session of the Dáil if this is considered appropriate.
E The Committee, following its investigations and inquiries may decide to make its own recommendations in Committee before deciding to close the petition.
F Where it appears that an Ombudsman or other regulatory public body is more competent or better suited to dealing with the issue the Committee
92
Joint Committee on Public Petitions – Review of the Terms of Reference
may forward the petition to the body concerned, while informing the petitioner of its action, before closing the case.
G In the event that the subject of the petition has recently been debated or reported upon within the parliament, or when information which provides a reply may be readily available within the parliament, the petition may be closed under a written procedure, with the consent of the Committee, and the petitioner informed accordingly.
As regards inadmissible petitions, such as those which fall outside of the competence of the parliament or are clearly under the jurisdiction of the courts or administrative tribunals, the petitioner should be informed and appropriate justification given, because in any event, it will be a political decision, not a legal decision. It should not therefore be subject to appeal.
It is clear, as a result of some of the above remarks, that care will need to be taken in order to upgrade the electronic platform of the committee, at least so as to ensure the addition of signatures of support for admissible petitions, for a particular time period, such as six weeks or three months for example. It should contain a suitable and user- friendly search function in order to browse existing petitions or closed petitions. Also, it would be beneficial if all registered petitions and their status, whether admissible/inadmissible, closed or open for signatures, open for deliberation etc could also appear on the platform. This will require more extensive analysis by the developers once decisions have been made by the committee and the Oireachtas concerning the rules of procedure and other aspects of the revised petitions process.
Moreover, it should not be forgotten that the electronic platform is, in a manner of speaking, in competition with other on-line petition platforms which are very popular, and which use their user metadata for commercial purposes. This is clearly not the case for the Oireachtas web portal. The added value for the citizen lies in the fact that the Oireachtas petitions process guarantees them the consideration of their concerns by their own elected parliament and a reply for each case.
The work of the Petitions Committee clearly reinforces the already prominent role of TDs when they represent their constituency, by institutionalising in a positive sense the significance which the Irish parliament attaches to the concerns of all citizens and residents of the country. The Oireachtas and the political parties and members which are elected to it now have the opportunity to ensure that from a good start the petitions process is authorised to develop its capacity and its outreach to the people of Ireland from an even more effective, efficient and user-friendly method which ensures to the
93
Joint Committee on Public Petitions – Review of the Terms of Reference
citizen due process and guarantees a basic fairness of procedures for all concerned.107 From this process of participatory democracy better representative democracy can flourish.
DL 15-02-2021
107 Article 40 of the Irish Constitution.
94
Joint Committee on Public Petitions – Review of the Terms of Reference
Appendix D: Submission from the Scottish Parliament
Leo Bollins Clerk to the Public Petitions Committee
Clerk to the Joint Committee on Public The Scottish Parliament Petitions Edinburgh Houses of the Oireachtas EH99 1SP By e mail— Tel: 0131-348-5254 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] 17 February 2021
Dear Leo,
1. I refer to correspondence received from the Chairman of the Joint Committee on Public Petitions on 27 January 2021, inviting the Scottish Parliament to provide a written submission on the committee’s Terms of Reference. 2. The invitation has been received at a time when the Scottish Parliament is making significant improvements to its online accessibility. This includes the development of a new website which will be easier to navigate and more user focused. As part of the new website, a new online petitions system is currently being developed. 3. I have structured the submission by outlining the rules and standards that govern how public petitions are processed and considered by the Scottish Parliament. I also provide a brief overview of previous reviews of the public petitions process as well as the objectives of the new petitions system we are currently developing.
95
Joint Committee on Public Petitions – Review of the Terms of Reference
4. The ability to petition the Scottish Parliament supports the Parliament’s founding principles as follows— • Accountable - the Scottish Parliament is answerable to the people of Scotland. The Scottish Parliament should hold the Scottish Government to account. • Open and Encourage participation - the Scottish Parliament should be accessible and involve the people of Scotland in its decisions as much as possible. • Power Sharing - Power should be shared among the Scottish Government, the Scottish Parliament and the people of Scotland. • Equal Opportunities - The Scottish Parliament should treat all people fairly. 5. The Scottish Parliament is formally committed, through its own Standing Orders, to consider all admissible petitions that are submitted. The Standing Orders establish a mandatory committee, the Public Petitions Committee, with a remit to consider petitions submitted to the Parliament and in particular— a) decide in a case of dispute whether a petition is admissible; b) decide what action should be taken upon an admissible public petition; and c) keep under review the operation of the petitions system. 6. Rule 15.5 of Standing Orders sets out the admissibility of petitions as follows— • Rule 15.4.2 - A petition must clearly state: (a) the name of the petitioner; (b) an address of the petitioner to which all communications concerning the petition should be sent; and (c) the name and address of any person supporting the petition. • Rule 15.5.1 - A petition is admissible unless it: (a) does not comply with Rule 15.4.2 or is otherwise not in proper form; (aa) is frivolous; (ab) breaches any enactment or rule of law; (ac) refers to any matter in relation to which legal proceedings are active; (b) contains language which is offensive; (ba) fails to raise issues of national policy or practice; (c) requests the Parliament to do anything which the Parliament clearly has no power to do; or (d) is the same as, or in substantially similar terms to, a petition brought during the same session of the Parliament and which was closed less than a year earlier. 7. Rule 15.4 of Standing Orders states that a petition may be brought in any language by an individual person (other than an elected representative), a body corporate or an unincorporated association of persons. 8. The Scottish Parliament’s public petitions process has no citizenship or residency requirements. Public petitions can be submitted by anyone in the world, regardless of their age, as long as it relates to a matter of Scottish policy or practice. 9. In addition to the Standing Orders Rules referred to above, the Committee has published a determination on the proper form of petitions under Rule 15.4.3 of Standing Orders. The determination is intended to be read in conjunction with
96
Joint Committee on Public Petitions – Review of the Terms of Reference
Standing Orders Rules and lists a number of more specific requirements required for a petition to be admissible, agreed by the Public Petitions Committee. Please find this information enclosed as an Annexe to this submission.
How petitions are processed and considered
10. A petition can be sent to the Scottish Parliament at any time when the office of the Clerk is open and the Parliament is not dissolved. Public petitions are received principally via the online petitions system however submissions can also be sent by e-mail or post. 11. All proposed petitions submitted to the Scottish Parliament are reviewed by the clerks to ensure they comply with the rules and standards for petitioning the Scottish Parliament. The clerks will then contact the petitioner with advice on their petition and suggest any amendments required to ensure the petition is admissible. 12. Where a petition does not comply with the rules and standards (for example, where an issue is reserved to the UK Parliament or fails to raise issues of national policy or practice) the clerks will communicate this clearly to the petitioner. In cases of dispute, the final decision on admissibility rests with the Committee. 13. The petitioner can choose to collect signatures on their petition before it is considered by the Public Petitions Committee (however this is not a formal requirement of the petitioning process). It should be noted that the number of signatures collected in support of a petition gives no additional weight to how it is considered. The issues raised in petition are considered purely on their merits. This approach differs to the UK Parliament, where the number of signatures received determines the action taken on a petition108. 14. All admissible petitions are published on the Public Petitions website and considered by the Public Petitions Committee. During the consideration of a petition, there are a number of different actions the Committee can take including— • requesting written information from the Scottish Government and other organisations • taking oral evidence on the petition from the Scottish Government, public bodies or other organisations • referring the petition to another committee of the Parliament • making recommendations for action by the Scottish Government
108 If a petition reaches 10,000 signatures, the UK Government will publish a written response. If a petition receives more than 100,000 signatures, the UK Parliament Petitions Committee will consider whether it should be debated. Some petitions are considered for a debate before they reach 100,000 signatures, but this is rare.
97
Joint Committee on Public Petitions – Review of the Terms of Reference
• asking for time in the Chamber to allow the petition to be debated by the Parliament • closing the petition. 15. It is worth highlighting that petitions that have not been closed do not fall at the end of a Session. These petitions are drawn to the attention of the successor public petitions committee in the next Session of Parliament.
Reviews of the public petitions system / new public petitions system
16. As abovementioned, the remit of the Public Petitions Committee includes a responsibility to keep under review the operation of the petitions system. This is conducted on a regular basis to ensure that the system remains fit-for-purpose. 17. In this regard, I provide links to two significant reviews of the public petitions process that have previously been conducted— Inquiry into the public petitions process (2009) Review of the Petitions Process (2015) 18. The development of a new public petitions system seeks to make improvements to the current system, while adhering to changes that have come into force since it was implemented. For example, legislation with regard to how personal data is processed, as outlined in The General Data Protection Regulation. While the regulation was introduced under EU law in 2018, in anticipation of Brexit, it was incorporated into UK data protection law as the UK GDPR on 31 January 2020. 19. In practice, this means that our new system will take advantage of modern technology to ensure the personal information we are required to gather is safe and secure. The new system will also remove the requirement for members of the public to create user accounts if they want to petition the Scottish Parliament. This will reduce the amount of personal data we are processing about petitioners, in line with the regulation. 20. The new system is also being designed to improve the user experience and ensure the Scottish Parliament is inclusive and accessible to all. It will take cognisance of developments to accessibility standards, ensuring information is accessible on all devices and is compliant with the Public Sector Bodies (Websites and Mobile Applications) (No. 2) Accessibility Regulations 2018 and The Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG). 21. In addition, the system will adhere to the Scottish Parliament’s recently launched Content Strategy which aims to make the Parliament more open and transparent by presenting information that is accessible and uses common language.
98
Joint Committee on Public Petitions – Review of the Terms of Reference
Concluding remarks
22. Public petitions are a fundamental aspect of the Scottish Parliament’s engagement process. Public engagement via our e-petitions system continues to grow and this is demonstrated by the large number of petitions submitted to the Parliament and currently under consideration by the Public Petitions Committee. 23. I trust that this information will assist the Committee in gaining an understanding of the Scottish Parliament’s approach to public petitions. 24. For further information, you may wish to read our guidance, which is intended to inform members of the public what they can petition about, what needs to be included in a petition and provides some information about using the petitions system. 25. You may also wish to read the Public Petitions Committee’s Vision Statement, which sets out the issues it has agreed to focus its efforts on during 2020-21. 26. All petitions can be found at the following weblink: http://www.parliament.scot/gettinginvolved/petitions/index.aspx
27. I would be happy to provide further information in relation to any aspect of this submission, should this be of assistance to the Committee.
Yours sincerely,
Lynn Russell
Clerk to the Public Petitions Committee
99
Joint Committee on Public Petitions – Review of the Terms of Reference
Annexe
Public Petitions Committee - Determination on proper form of petitions
To be read alongside the Parliament’s rules on public petitions, the Public Petitions Committee has made the following determination under Rule 15.4.3 on proper form of petitions.
• Petitions should be submitted using the Scottish Parliament’s online petitions site. All sections should be completed. • If an individual has no access to or difficulty in using the online petitions site, or if the site is unavailable, a petition may be submitted in paper form using the word template. • A petition may be brought in any language. Where a language other than English is used, the Parliament will provide a translation. • Petitions should be brief and state clearly what action is being sought. • No supplementary information (such as correspondence, legal information, photographs, or copies of Freedom of Information requests) will be accepted as part of a petition. • Petitions must relate to national policy or practice as opposed to a local or individual matter. • Petition titles should be a short factual description that explains what is sought but not a slogan or campaign name. For example, “changes to the law about fatal accident inquiries” would be an appropriate title. “Betty’s Law” or “Justice for Betty” would not be. • Previous action taken on a petition must include raising the issue with a relevant decision maker such as the Scottish Government (or other relevant public body) or an elected representative such as an MSP. • A petition will not be considered by the Public Petitions Committee if the same (or substantially similar) petition, submitted by the same petitioner, has previously been considered by the Committee and closed at its first consideration on three consecutive occasions. • Petitions should not: o Name individuals or otherwise contain information that could lead to the identification of any individual. This excludes elected representatives and senior managers of public bodies. o Contain any false statements. It is the responsibility of the petitioner to ensure that statements are accurate. o Refer to any matter that is the subject of continuing court proceedings. o Seek an adjudication or decision on an individual or commercial matter.
100
Joint Committee on Public Petitions – Review of the Terms of Reference
o Seek to involve the Public Petitions Committee in a decision that is more properly the domain of another body (for example complaints, court appeals, planning appeals, local authority expenditure decisions etc.) o Include language or wording that is defamatory, offensive, or inappropriate, for example swear words, insults, sarcasm or other language that could reasonably be considered offensive by a reader.
101
Joint Committee on Public Petitions – Review of the Terms of Reference
102
Joint Committee on Public Petitions – Review of the Terms of Reference
Appendix E: Submission from the Legislative Council of Western Australia
OFFICE OF THE CLERK
Legislative Council Parliament House | 4 Harvest Terrace | West Perth WA 6005 Telephone: 08 9222 7214 | Email: [email protected]
OFFICE OF THE CLERK
Our ref: A868867
12 February 2021
Leo Bollins Clerk to the Committee Joint Committee on Public Petitions Houses of the Oireachtas Leinster House Dublin 2 D02 XR20
By email: [email protected]
Dear Mr Bollins
Review of the Terms of Reference of the Joint Committee on Public Petitions
I refer to the letter from your Chairman of 27 January 2020 inviting a submission to your committee in relation to the review of its Terms of Reference.
Please find attached my submission.
103
Joint Committee on Public Petitions – Review of the Terms of Reference
The Legislative Council of Western Australia has a committee, the Standing Committee on Environment and Public Affairs (‘Committee’), which is tasked with considering petitions. When complying petitions are presented to the House, they are referred to the Committee for inquiry by operation of the Standing Orders.
The Committee recently tabled a report on an inquiry into its functions, processes and procedures. This report considered whether the Committee’s Terms of Reference reflect its core function of considering petitions referred by the Legislative Council.109 The report discusses a number of matters which I believe are of relevance to your committee’s review, including:
• admissibility criteria for the tabling and consideration of petitions; • managing expectations of petitioners; • the giving of reasons for closing petitions; • consultation with the Ombudsman; and • reporting to the Parliament on petitions.
My submission makes a number of references to this report and I trust it will be of assistance to your committee in its inquiry.
Should your committee require further information please contact Ms Christine Kain, Clerk Assistant (Committees) at email [email protected].
Yours sincerely
Nigel Pratt
Clerk of the Legislative Council
Att: Submission
109 Western Australia, Legislative Council, Standing Committee on Environment and Public Affairs, report 54, The functions, processes and procedures of the Standing Committee on Environment and Public Affairs – are they clear for petitioners and do they reflect its core petitions role?, 17 September 2020.
104
Joint Committee on Public Petitions – Review of the Terms of Reference
Submission to Review of the Terms of Reference of the Joint Committee on Public Petitions
Legislative Council of Western Australia
1.1. The Joint Committee on Public Petitions (JCPP) has invited the Legislative Council to make a submission on the review of its Terms of Reference (TOR) and, in particular: • how they compare to the TOR of the Standing Committee on Environment and Public Affairs (Committee); and • whether suggestions could be made to improve public engagement with the JCPP.
Comparison between Terms of Reference
1.2. The Standing Orders of the Houses of the Oireachtas contain both the rules for the lodging and admissibility of petitions as well as the JCPP’s TOR. The Legislative Council Standing Orders, while setting out form, content and tabling requirements for petitions, place the Committee’s TOR in Schedule 1, which state, relevantly:
2.3 The functions of the Committee are to inquire into and report on –
(c) petitions.
1.3. Consequently, and as evidenced in the Committee’s 54th report, the key difference between the TOR of the JCPP and the Committee is that the JCPP TOR are more prescriptive regarding the rules governing the admissibility and consideration of petitions. For instance: • The JCPP TOR, set out in Standing Order 127(1)(f) and (g), deem inadmissible a petition that is the same or in substantially similar terms to a previous petition or a petition which is frivolous or vexatious. The Legislative Council does not have a similar Standing Order or Committee TOR referring to these admissibility criteria. The Committee decides on a case by case basis whether and how these petitions are considered, once referred.110
110 Western Australia, Legislative Council, Standing Committee on Environment and Public Affairs, report 54, The functions, processes and procedures of the Standing Committee on Environment and Public Affairs – are they clear for petitioners and do they reflect its core petitions role?, 17 September 2020, p 16.
105
Joint Committee on Public Petitions – Review of the Terms of Reference
A table comparing the admissibility criteria for petitions to the Legislative Council, the Scottish Parliament and the United Kingdom House of Commons appears in the Committee’s 54th report.111
• The JCPP TOR, set out in Standing Order 127(2), provides that where a petition deals with local or regional matters or matters more appropriate to a regulatory public body, the JCPP shall establish that all avenues of appeal have been used by the petitioner prior to considering the matter.
The Legislative Council does not have a similar Standing Order or Committee TOR. The Committee decides on a case by case basis whether and how these petitions are considered, once referred.
• The ability for the JCPP to refer a petition to an Ombudsman; a regulatory body or a body established for the purpose of redress is specifically recognised in the JCPP TOR in Standing Order 128(2)(a).
In comparison, the only reference to the Ombudsman (known as the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administrative Investigations in Western Australia) in the Legislative Council Standing Orders is in the TOR for the Standing Committee on Public Administration.
The Committee does not currently have a working arrangement with the Ombudsman, though it previously consulted regularly with the Ombudsman to ascertain whether matters raised in petitions had been referred to that office as complaints.112 During the inquiry into its functions, processes and procedures, the Committee:
explored with the Ombudsman whether regular communication can be reinitiated to assist the Committee in its consideration of petitions and avoid any potential duplication of investigations. In his evidence, the Ombudsman expressed a willingness to work with the Committee by exchanging information on investigations undertaken on issues raised in petitions.113
The Committee recommended that the Committee in the next Parliament:
establish a working arrangement with the Ombudsman for the exchange of information on issues raised in petitions.114
111 3 ibid, p 10. 112 ibid, pp 18-19. 113 ibid, p 20. 114 ibid, p 21.
106
Joint Committee on Public Petitions – Review of the Terms of Reference
• The JCPP is required to give the petitioner reasons for closing a petition, as stated in Standing Order 129(2).
The Legislative Council Standing Orders or the Committee’s TOR do not contain such a requirement.
The Committee’s ‘usual practice is to advise the principal petitioner and tabling Member that it has concluded its enquiries and provide a summary of the response(s) received, without providing a specific reason for closing the petition.’115
The Committee has, however, recognised the importance of providing petitioners with sufficient information to understand the reason why a particular decision on a petition was made, which enhances the transparency of the petitions process.116
Improving public engagement
1.4. The Committee’s 54th report goes into some detail about how the Committee can improve its engagement with petitioners in addressing the gap between their expectations of the outcomes arising from their petition and what occurs in practice. 1.5. The Committee found there was insufficient information provided to petitioners on its process for considering petitions, including the circumstances that may limit enquiries (which are not currently articulated in formal guidance material). 1.6. The Committee resolved to develop guidance material to enable petitioners to have a better understanding of how their petition will be considered, enhancing their overall experience with the process and reducing the disconnect between their expectations and what can be delivered by Parliament. Educating petitioners on the Committee’s role before they become involved in the petitions process will assist in achieving this outcome. 1.7. The Committee in the next Parliament will be provided with this guidance material for its consideration. 1.8. The JCPP may wish to consider the points made by the Committee in its 54th report about how to improve engagement with petitioners to the extent this is relevant to the JCPP’s processes and procedures.
115 ibid. 116 ibid, p 23.
107
Joint Committee on Public Petitions – Review of the Terms of Reference
108
Joint Committee on Public Petitions – Review of the Terms of Reference
Appendix F: Flowchart of the Oireachtas Public Petitions Process
Start Secretariat examines Petition Lodged Petition for Admissibility
Secretariat requests preliminary False Admissible views from Government etc. True ?
Preliminary Preparation of views from summary note Government
Committee considers
Petition and documents True
Further Action False Admissible? Required? True False
Request further submissions Submissions Public policy issue addressed from Government etc., hold from the noPetition further action by requiredthe Committee hearings, publish report Government
etc.
False True Close Petition?
Petition Closed, Petition Inadmissible, Petitioner Informed Petitioner informed
Committee may consider related End matters and Public Policy etc.
109
Joint Committee on Public Petitions – Review of the Terms of Reference
110
Joint Committee on Public Petitions – Review of the Terms of Reference
Appendix G: Oireachtas Public Petitions Ecosystem
Petitions Committee of
the European Parliament
Dáil Seanad
May report to Dáil / Seanad with recommendations, and request debate
Government,
Agencies, Public. Bodies, etc. Petitioner
Consideration of Public Petitions
May refer case to Consideration Consideration Ombudsman etc. of of Public Policy Reports Issues of Ombudsmen
After 2 months if report Joint Committee is not considered by a on Public Petitions sectoral committee
Sectoral Ombudsmen Within Two Committees Months? etc.
Lay report before 111 both Houses Joint Committee on Public Petitions – Review of the Terms of Reference
112
Joint Committee on Public Petitions – Review of the Terms of Reference
Appendix H: Orders of Reference
125. Joint Committee on Public Petitions.
9) There shall stand established, following the reassembly of the Dáil subsequent to a General Election, a Standing Committee, which shall be joined with a similar Committee of Seanad Éireann, to form the Joint Committee on Public Petitions, to consider— a) public petitions addressed to the Houses of the Oireachtas which shall stand referred to the Committee in accordance with Standing Orders 126 to 129, inclusive; b) such other matters as may be referred to the Committee by the Houses of the Oireachtas; and c) any other related matters. 10) The Committee may also consider a matter of general public concern or interest in relation to the legislative powers of the Houses of the Oireachtas or an issue of public policy: Provided that prior to the commencement of such consideration, the Chairman of the Joint Committee shall consult with the relevant Committee established pursuant to Standing Order 95.117 11) The Standing Committee shall consist of seven members of Dáil Éireann.118 The quorum of the Joint Committee shall be four, of whom at least one shall be a member of Dáil Éireann and one a member of Seanad Éireann. The Chairman of the Joint Committee shall be a member of Dáil Éireann.
117 Functions of Departmental Select Committees. 118 Seanad Standing Order 108. (3): The Standing Committee shall consist of four members of Seanad Éireann. The quorum of the Joint Committee shall be four, of whom at least one shall be a member of Seanad Éireann and one a member of Dáil Éireann. The Chairman of the Joint Committee shall be a member of Dáil Éireann.
113
Joint Committee on Public Petitions – Review of the Terms of Reference
12) The Joint Committee shall have the following powers: a) the powers defined in Standing Order 96,119 other than paragraphs (4), (6), (7) thereof; and b) power to refer any matter which has been considered by it (and which has been concluded to be of sufficient importance to require additional consideration) to the relevant Joint Committee appointed under Standing Order 95120 for further consideration and report back to the Committee. 13) The provisions of Standing Order 106,121 other than paragraph (1) thereof, shall apply to the Joint Committee. 14) The Joint Committee may engage with the Committee on Petitions of the European Parliament122 including in relation to the European Citizens’ Initiative.123 15) It shall be an instruction to the Joint Committee that it shall not consider any matter which is being considered, or of which notice has been given of a proposal to consider, by the Committee of Public Accounts in the exercise of its functions under Standing Order 218124 and/or the Comptroller and Auditor General (Amendment) Act 1993,125 16) The Joint Committee shall prepare an annual work programme and an annual report as outlined in Standing Order 100,126 which shall be laid before both Houses of the Oireachtas.
119 Powers of Select Committees. 120 Functions of Departmental Select Committees. 121 Ex Officio Membership of, Substitution in, and Attendance at Select Committees. 122 European parliament Committee on Petitions (PETI) Web site: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/committees/en/peti/about Petitions portal: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/petitions/en/home 123 https://www.europarl.europa.eu/at-your-service/en/be-heard/citizen-s-initiative 124 Committee of Public Accounts. 125 http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1993/act/8/enacted/en/html 126 Printing and Publication of Select Committee Reports, Work Programmes and Annual Reports of Select Committees.
114
Joint Committee on Public Petitions – Review of the Terms of Reference
126. Lodging of petitions.
1) A petition may be addressed to the Houses of the Oireachtas on a matter of general public concern or interest in relation to their legislative powers or an issue of public policy. 2) A petition may be lodged by an individual person, a body corporate or an unincorporated association of persons. 3) A petition shall clearly indicate— a) the name of the petitioner; b) an address of the petitioner to which all communications concerning the petition should be sent; and c) the name and address of any person supporting the petition. 4) All petitions addressed to the Houses of the Oireachtas shall stand referred to the Joint Committee on Public Petitions (referred to in this Standing Order and Standing Orders 127, 128 and 129 as “the Committee”). 5) The Committee shall, from time to time, determine— a) the proper form of petitions; b) the manner in which petitions are to be lodged with the Houses; and c) such other matters in relation to the consideration of petitions as the Committee considers appropriate and which are not otherwise provided for in these Standing Orders.
115
Joint Committee on Public Petitions – Review of the Terms of Reference
127. Admissibility of petitions.
1) A petition is admissible unless it— a) requests the Dáil to do anything other than the Dáil has power to do; b) does not comply with Standing Orders or is otherwise not in proper form; c) is sub judice within the meaning of Standing Order 69;127 d) contains the name or names of individuals; e) contains language which is offensive or in the nature of being defamatory; f) is the same as, or in substantially similar terms to, a petition brought by or on behalf of the same person, body corporate or unincorporated association during the lifetime of that Dáil and which was closed by agreement of the Committee; g) is frivolous, vexatious or otherwise constitutes an abuse of the petitions system; and h) requires the Committee to consider an individual complaint which has been the subject of a decision by an Ombudsman, or by a regulatory public body or a body established for the purpose of redress. 2) In relation to admissible petitions, where a petition deals with— a) local or regional matters; or b) matters which are more appropriate to a regulatory public body or a body established for the purpose of redress; the Committee shall establish that all available avenues of appeal or redress have been utilised by the petitioner prior to the Committee considering the matter.
3) The Committee shall consider and decide in a case of dispute whether a petition is admissible and shall notify the petitioner of its decision and of the reasons for that decision.
127 Debate: matters sub judice.
116
Joint Committee on Public Petitions – Review of the Terms of Reference
128. Actions in relation to petitions.
1) If a petition is admissible, the Committee shall take such action as it considers appropriate in relation to that petition. 2) Without prejudice to the generality of paragraph (1), the Committee may— a) refer the petition to an Ombudsman or a regulatory public body or a body established for the purpose of redress; b) refer the petition to any other Committee as it considers appropriate, with a request for further consideration and report back to the Committee; and c) report to the Dáil with recommendations, including a request that the report be debated by the Dáil. 3) The Committee shall notify the petitioner of any action taken under paragraph (2).
129. Closing of petitions.
1) The Committee may close a petition at any time. 2) Where the Committee closes a petition it shall notify the petitioner that the petition is closed and of the reasons for closing it.
130. Consideration of Ombudsman report.
Where a Select Committee does not under Standing Order 95(8)(b)128 consider an Ombudsman report, or a portion or portions thereof, within two months (excluding Christmas, Easter or summer recess periods) of the report being laid before either or both Houses of the Oireachtas, the Committee shall proceed to consider the Ombudsman report, or any portions thereof not considered by the Select Committee.
128 Functions of Departmental Select Committees.
117
Joint Committee on Public Petitions – Review of the Terms of Reference
96. Powers of Select Committees.129
Unless the Dáil (Seanad) shall otherwise order, a Committee appointed pursuant to these Standing Orders shall have the following powers:
1) power to invite and receive oral and written evidence and to print and publish from time to time― a) minutes of such evidence as was heard in public, and b) such evidence in writing as the Committee thinks fit; 2) power to appoint sub-Committees and to refer to such sub-Committees any matter comprehended by its orders of reference and to delegate any of its powers to such sub-Committees, including power to report directly to the Dáil; 3) power to draft recommendations for legislative change and for new legislation; 4) in relation to any statutory instrument, including those laid or laid in draft before either or both Houses of the Oireachtas, power to― a) require any Government Department or other instrument-making authority concerned to― i) submit a memorandum to the Select Committee explaining the statutory instrument, or ii) attend a meeting of the Select Committee to explain any such statutory instrument: Provided that the authority concerned may decline to attend for reasons given in writing to the Select Committee, which may report thereon to the Dáil, and b) recommend, where it considers that such action is warranted, that the instrument should be annulled or amended;130
129 Note: Standing Order 125 (4) (a) states that “The Joint Committee (on Public Petitions) shall have the following powers: the powers defined in Standing Order 96, other than paragraphs (4), (6), (7) thereof; and …” 130 Paragraph (4) does not apply to the Joint Committee on Public Petitions
118
Joint Committee on Public Petitions – Review of the Terms of Reference
5) power to require that a member of the Government or Minister of State shall attend before the Select Committee to discuss― a) policy, or b) proposed primary or secondary legislation (prior to such legislation being published), for which he or she is officially responsible: Provided that a member of the Government or Minister of State may decline to attend for stated reasons given in writing to the Select Committee, which may report thereon to the Dáil: and provided further that a member of the Government or Minister of State may request to attend a meeting of the Select Committee to enable him or her to discuss such policy or proposed legislation;
6) power to require that a member of the Government or Minister of State shall attend before the Select Committee and provide, in private session if so requested by the attendee, oral briefings in advance of meetings of the relevant EC Council (of Ministers) of the European Union to enable the Select Committee to make known its views: Provided that the Committee may also require such attendance following such meetings;131 7) power to require that the Chairperson designate of a body or agency under the aegis of a Department shall, prior to his or her appointment, attend before the Select Committee to discuss his or her strategic priorities for the role;132 8) power to require that a member of the Government or Minister of State who is officially responsible for the implementation of an Act shall attend before a Select Committee in relation to the consideration of a report under Standing Order 197;133
131 Paragraph (6) does not apply to the Joint Committee on Public Petitions 132 Paragraph (7) does not apply to the Joint Committee on Public Petitions 133 Post-enactment report.
119
Joint Committee on Public Petitions – Review of the Terms of Reference
9) subject to any constraints otherwise prescribed by law, power to require that principal office-holders of a― a) State body within the responsibility of a Government Department or b) non-State body which is partly funded by the State, shall attend meetings of the Select Committee, as appropriate, to discuss issues for which they are officially responsible: Provided that such an office- holder may decline to attend for stated reasons given in writing to the Select Committee, which may report thereon to the Dáil; and
10) power to― a) engage the services of persons with specialist or technical knowledge, to assist it or any of its sub-Committees in considering particular matters; and b) undertake travel; Provided that the powers under this paragraph are subject to such recommendations as may be made by the Working Group of Committee Chairmen under Standing Order 120(4)(a).134
134 Working Group of Committee Chairmen.
120
Joint Committee on Public Petitions – Review of the Terms of Reference
Appendix I: Membership of the Joint Committee on Public Petitions
An Comhchoiste um Achainíocha ón bPobal
Joint Committee on Public Petitions
Members
Deputies:
Martin Browne (SF) [Chair]
Pat Buckley (SF)
Cormac Devlin (FF)
Brendan Griffin (FG)
Eoghan Murphy (FG)
Richard O’Donoghue (IND)
Pádraig O'Sullivan (FF)
Senators:
Jerry Buttimer (FG)
Gerard Craughwell (IND)
Eugene Murphy (FF)
Fintan Warfield (SF)
Notes:
1. Deputies were nominated by the Dáil Committee of Selection and appointed by Order of the Dáil on 24th September 2020. 2. Deputy Martin Browne was appointed Chair to the Public Petitions Committee, pursuant to Standing Order 104(2), by Order of the Dáil on 24th September 2020. 3. Senators were nominated by the Seanad Committee of Selection and appointed by Order of the Seanad on 7th October 2020.
121
Joint Committee on Public Petitions – Review of the Terms of Reference
Joint Committee on Public Petitions
Martin Browne TD Pat Buckley TD Cormac Devlin TD Brendan Griffin TD
Sinn Féin (Chair) Sinn Féin Fianna Fáil Fine Gael
Eoghan Murphy TD Richard O’Donoghue TD Pádraig O'Sullivan TD
Fine Gael Independent Fianna Fáil
Senator Senator Senator Senator Jerry Buttimer Gerard Craughwell Eugene Murphy Fintan Warfield Sinn Féin Fine Gael Independent Fianna Fáil
122
Joint Committee on Public Petitions – Review of the Terms of Reference
123
Joint Committee on Public Petitions – Review of the Terms of Reference
124