Oireachtas petition process must be transparent

As a believer in democracy I welcome the new Oireachtas petitions system whereby any of us can petition the Oireachtas on issues of public concern.

But I would question whether members of the committee to which the petitions will be presented will be capable of dealing with each issue strictly on its own merits. My concern arises from the fact that the Joint Committee on Public Service and Petitions is, like all other Oireachtas committees, composed of politicians — TDs and senators.

I would love to think that each of the politicians on the committee will address the concerns of petitioners fairly and with forensic objectivity, but past experience does not inspire confidence in that regard.

My fear is that they may be tempted to approach each issue from their own party political perspectives or prejudices, or with an eye to electoral considerations.

If, for example, an issue of great controversy has to be considered by the committee, can politicians really be trusted to put aside their own feelings and act in the public interest? Will the fear of losing votes militate against a given course of action, as it does in relation to just about every issue that politicians have to deal with?

In 1984, a motion to the Oireachtas Joint Legislative Committee calling for an investigation into the cruelty of live hare coursing was rejected by committee members by a margin of nine votes to six. This was the result, despite the fact that the committee had received thousands of letters from the public supporting the proposed investigation and less than a dozen opposing it.

TDs with coursing clubs in their constituencies had voted down the motion. I was involved with campaigning on that issue at the time. It offered me an insight into how the political process operates.

I would be in favour of an oath of some kind to be taken by the Oireachtas committee members to ensure that they will not be swayed by party policies or diktats or electoral self-interest when considering petitions, and the publication in full of the reasons why any given petition has been rejected.

Otherwise, the entire procedure will be suspect and may come to be seen as mere political window-dressing posing as an exercise in democracy.

John Fitzgerald

Callan

Co Kilkenny