Maidin maith, gach duine. I welcome everyone to the public session of our meeting. First, I will read the formal notices regarding privilege.

I remind members of the constitutional requirement that they must be physically present within the confines of the place in which Parliament has chosen to sit, namely Leinster House, in order to participate in public meetings. I will not permit a member to participate where the member is not adhering to this constitutional requirement. Therefore, any member who attempts to participate from outside the precincts will be asked to leave the meeting.

I propose that the petitions considered by the committee at this meeting and previous meetings will be published and that the replies from the Departments will also be published. Is that agreed? Agreed.

P00001/25 is entitled "Call for NTA to Reconsider Ban on E-Scooters on Public Transport". It was submitted by Mr. Shane Weldon. As we can see from the correspondence, there has been engagement between Mr. Weldon and the committee. The secretariat has written to the Department of Transport. We received a response from the Department and that has been forwarded to the petitioner to allow him to respond. The proposal is that the correspondence from the petitioner we have received be forwarded to the Department and we will consider its response at our next meeting and take a decision on when we should schedule a hearing. Is that agreed? Agreed.

P00005/25 is entitled "Travel grievance for short stay and tourism purpose within CTA for residents". It was submitted by Mr Nagesh Siddegowda. There has been some back and forth between the petitioner and the Department of justice. The committee has exchanged correspondence with the Department. The recommendation is that we publish the response from the Department of Justice, Home Affairs and Migration and that the correspondence from the Department be forwarded to the petitioner for comment within 14 days. Do members have any views on this or is the proposal agreed to? Agreed.

P00043/25 is entitled “Cannabis regulation and expansion of the Medical Cannabis Access Programme”. It was submitted by the Futures Green Project and calls for the expansion of the medical cannabis programme in Ireland to correlate with a health-led response. There has been an exchange of correspondence between the committee and the Department of Health. The recommendation is that correspondence from the petitioner be forwarded to the Department of Health for comment within 14 days. I suspect this is an issue that committee members might want to schedule a hearing on. It is a very interesting topic that we would have discussed previously on the floor of the Dáil and at the health committee. There still is some discussion to be had on it. The proposal is that we forward the correspondence from the petitioner to the Department of Health and then consider the latter's response.

I am a bit disappointed with the response from the Department to date in terms of it not providing adequate timelines as to how it is going to evaluate different conditions and the appropriateness of this kind of treatment. I share the frustration of the people who are looking for this, so I would strongly support us having a hearing on it in the new year. For those who have either acute chronic conditions or fatal conditions, it is really important that they have access to this treatment. The Department's lackadaisical approach in terms of addressing this issue and setting out a timeline for how it is going to actually deliver this treatment is really disappointing.

We will get a response from the Department. No more than the Deputy, I cannot be held responsible for the quality or otherwise of that response. We will consider the response that comes back. I imagine that we will be returning to this issue, but we will be a little better informed as a result of the response we get. It might contain a little more information. Obviously, we will then have an opportunity to hear from the petitioner.

I absolutely appreciate that. For the moment, the proposal is that the correspondence would be forwarded to the Department of Health for comment within 14 days. Is that agreed? Agreed.

The fourth petition, P00051/25, relates to the Credit Union Acts. During Covid, we will all remember, though we would probably like to forget some of it, there was a stipulation that meetings such as AGMs had to move online for reasons of public health and safety. This petitioner is concerned that the practice has continued and has a preference for in-person meetings. The petitioner's belief is that the best way to do this is to remove the facility for online meetings because that is where the issue is. We have corresponded with the Department of Finance in this regard, because it was the Department of Finance that listed the prohibition on online meetings and it was the Department of Health that mandated meetings to move online in the first instance. The proposal is that the correspondence from the Department be forwarded to the petitioner and that we will publish that response. There is an issue around accountability contained with this petition so when we see the response from the petitioner we will see if they are satisfied with the response from the Department. I suspect we may come back to this but for the moment we will publish the response from the Department of Finance and we will forward it to the petitioner and ask them for their comment. Is that agreed?

The next petition, P00052/25, relates to the Inch Killeagh Rural Preservation Group. This is a petition that relates to a solar farm. The group is asking the committee to discuss the complications of large-scale solar farm developments in east Cork, specifically, and the impact on the rural community around this solar farm. We have written to the Department of Climate, Energy and the Environment looking for a response. We have a response from it. The proposal is that we publish that response and forward it to the petitioners for their own comment within 14 days. Do members have any views on this?

I received a call this morning from one of my parliamentary colleagues, Deputy Liam Quaide, who represents this constituency. We had a brief discussion on this. Obviously, the building of renewable energy is incredibly important for the future of our country's energy security and our economy. However, we need to do this in concert with communities and understand their needs and all of that. More generally, one of the things Deputy Quaide and I were discussing was that we have kind of put the cart before the horse in some of these things. A private individual can build something and then ask for permission and for engagement from the community, rather than asking the community how it wants to develop these kinds of energy projects. There is a really worthwhile exercise in terms of this committee evaluating that and understanding how we make sure the voices of communities are being heard in proper development, notwithstanding the very urgent and important need to make sure these renewable energy projects come on line. My understanding is that the second largest solar farm in Europe is being proposed here so it is not a small thing. It would be really important for us to initiate that hearing if we can, next year.

I thank Deputy Hayes. I know my own colleague, Deputy Pat Buckley, has been engaged with this issue as well. I think Deputy Hayes is right. Obviously, the local community feels it has not been heard. It has come to us to look for a hearing. As Chair, I am more than happy that we proceed on that basis. We have a proposal in front of us in relation to the correspondence but that will very clearly not be the end of this issue. It is a large-scale development. The community feels very strongly about it. We will hear from the community. I agree with Deputy Hayes and I know Deputy Buckley is of the same mind. It is something that we can give a hearing to so I hope we will get a chance to schedule that in the new year. Is that agreed? Agreed.

The next petition, P00053/25, relates to an issue with the Dental Council. It was submitted by the Hahessy Patients Justice Group. We can see the detail in relation what has been a fairly extensive exchange of correspondence. There has been a lot of correspondence exchanged. There has been a lot of discussion on this issue.

There certainly is a large number of people who feel they have been denied a remedy. However, we as a committee have a duty not just to consider petitions but also consider where we can assist. Where we can assist we should, but, where we cannot, we need to be upfront and honest with people. My clear understanding is that we do not have the power to order the Dental Council to pay compensation. That does not mean we lack any sympathy for the people involved; we very much do not lack sympathy for the people involved. However, I do not see a clear role for us here. Do Deputies have a view?

I have met a lot of those affected, both patients and their families. We have a situation where people, young people in particular, were left with half-finished treatment or treatment that was not carried out properly. A lot of people’s treatment did not take place at all. Families have been left thousands of euros out of pocket as a result. They have been campaigning relentlessly for justice since then over the last few years but they have been left with little support from the State, the Dental Council and the Minister for Health, Deputy Carroll MacNeill. There are wider issues around the role of the Dental Council and the powers it has. What happens when an orthodontist disappears and patients are left in the lurch? We clearly do not have the systems to deal with that. That needs to be dealt with by the Government. I know the Cathaoirleach mentioned that this committee does not have powers to compel the Dental Council but, in the short term, the State needs to put in place some form of compensation scheme for all these families to ensure they receive some form of justice for what has happened to them. I urge the committee to do whatever it can to support them. I thank the Cathaoirleach for giving me the opportunity to speak on the matter today.

I am disappointed with the response from the Dental Council that it does not go any further. I understand there are limitations under the undertaking from the court and, given the court case was in camera, it is not something that we as a committee are privy to or can delve into. I wish to look at point No. 21 on the letter from the Dental Council which states: "The remedy for patients under Irish law is to litigate. Patients contacting the Dental Council have been consistently informed to discuss their case with their solicitor and to contact other orthodontic practices regarding the continuation of care". It was painstakingly difficult for the parents of these children to find other care providers to take them on because it is a known thing across dentistry that people do not take on other cases that are half finished or have problems or other issues. It took a long time to get a lot of these children and teenagers seen to. That meant there was a gap in care and, ultimately, a lack of care. That is where the Dental Council needed to step in more to direct people to available orthodontic clinics to ensure these children and teenagers were seen to.

When it comes to the litigation piece, I have met all of the parents and there is a concern around their ability to litigate now. I would appreciate, if possible, if clarity could be given to the parents on whether they have a case. Obviously, the fact that the Dental Council is saying the remedy for parents under Irish law is to litigate is almost alluding to the fact that the parents may have a case. That may or may not be true. The reality is that there are parents who paid money and never received treatment. Simple consumer protection should step in here to protect those consumers because, at the end of the day, this is healthcare and these people need to be cared for. A lot of them feel hurt over what has happened here. We are talking about 2022. We are now in December 2025, three years on, and no parents have received money back or been paid. It is really important they have the opportunity to do so. I do not know what levers are available to the committee or whether there is anything we can do in this regard. Perhaps we could write to the Dental Council again to ask it to clarify the legal measures available to patients, but I understand it may say that is a matter for them and their solicitors.

I fear that might be the case. I appreciate the strength of feeling expressed by Deputies Dolan and O’Hara on behalf of their constituents this morning, but point No. 21 in the response from the Dental Council is very clear. There is no room for ambiguity in this regard. It says, "The remedy for patients under Irish law is to litigate." I find that quite a brutal response. That said, it is the response and, unfortunately, we as a committee are not going to be in a position to compel the Dental Council. I note what the Deputies are saying, however. I have read about this case. It is a very serious matter and there are many people who are not only left considerably out of pocket - that is one element of it - but also out of care, such as kids left with half-finished treatment, etc.

Orthodontic treatment can take many years for some patients. A lot of these patients will not complete their treatment for potentially another year or two, depending on the severity of it. Going forward, it is vital that the Dental Council continue its engagement with the parents and all those affected by this matter.

Does the committee have the power to compel this wrong to be righted?

We do not because the Dental Council has been absolutely clear in this regard. It says the only remedy available to the petitioners and group is to litigate through the courts. There has been a lot of correspondence between the petitioners and the Dental Council but my clear understanding is that the committee does not have the power to compel the Dental Council to pay compensation. However, I share the concerns expressed by Deputies Dolan and O'Hara with regard to litigation being the only option because this is healthcare and these people have been left behind. It is important that the petitioners understand that, while we may not have the power, we have sympathy. It is not that we have no sympathy for their case. Rather, it would not be fair of us to pretend we can do something when we cannot. In all circumstances, the fairest thing to do is to close the petition and advise the petitioners that, if they so wish, they can follow the advice of the Dental Council.

I wish to put it on the record that it is incumbent upon on every public body to ensure fitness-to-practice cases, or cases of that kind, are carried out expeditiously. I understand the timeline is part of the problem in this particular instance. It is important that the Dental Council take this on board and ensures these things are dealt with in good time so that people have the opportunity to seek remedy.

The other side of this, which Deputy Dolan mentioned, is that this is a consumer issue. A lot of dentists and orthodontists are private entities and companies and they have an obligation to meet their consumers and honour any contracts or any implied contracts in payments to provide treatment. That is probably another element when we think about future-proofing so that this does not happen to families again. We must ensure that the Dental Council is more expeditious, that the remedy is there from a consumer protection perspective, and that the associated bodies have the powers to make sure these things are remedied in good time, especially in cases where somebody is struck off in a fitness-to-practice case or where a company closes down. People have the right to redress and we need to ensure that is the case.

Obviously, as has been said, litigation is not an option for these families. I am concerned that they are going to be continued to be denied any kind of justice.

The Dental Council of Ireland is saying it does not have any mechanism to provide compensation and so on in this case. Is it open to the committee to have a discussion with the Minister with responsibility for consumer protection, whom I assume is the Minister for trade, around this issue? This issue also falls into the category of healthcare. Is that something that might be an option for the committee in this case?

We can certainly give that some consideration. The Competition and Consumer Protection Commission, CCPC, comes under the remit of the Minister for enterprise. I propose that we write to the Dental Council and request it to maintain the engagement with the members of this group and that it try to come to some understanding in terms of what it is it can do. I am struck by point No. 21, which does not leave any room for ambiguity.

One issue that arose during my engagements with the parents was that to be registered with the Dental Council, you have to have dental insurance. The parents in this case have not been able to ascertain the details of the dental insurance provider or any insurance reference number. It would be vital for the Dental Council to provide the details of the insurance to the families so they have a mechanism that does not involve directly going to court but may involve pursuing the insurance provider of this individual. It is three years on and they have not been able to get the insurance details. There is not fair play here. That is the crux of the matter.

We will write to the Dental Council, if that is agreed, and ask it to engage and answer any outstanding questions that the petitioners may have. My understanding is that you must have indemnity insurance but I do not know how that operates in this specific case. I stress that I have read the correspondence and this is a very serious matter. I absolutely appreciate the depth and strength of feeling from this group. Its members have been very consistent and have persisted with their case. I can see that they have tried every avenue. What I do not want to do is to potentially open up an avenue for which there will be no resolution at the end. I do not think that is fair. We, as a committee, need to be mindful of that. I want to be absolutely and unequivocally clear that it is not that we do not have sympathy. It is not that we do not see that there is an injustice here. It is that we, as a committee, are not in a position to be helpful. I do not want to waste anyone's time because if you read the correspondence, you will see there is frustration about people having their time wasted. I do not want us to be a party to that. That is not how we, as a committee, do our business.

If it is agreed, we will write to the Dental Council and ask it to maintain an ongoing engagement and answer any outstanding questions that the petitioners may have. Thereafter, my proposal is that we will close this petition. Is that agreed? Agreed.

The next petition relates to the fish counter for the River Maine near Castlemaine in Kerry. There have been emails and requests for data. This has gone on for quite a number of years. We have written to the Department of Climate, Energy and the Environment. We looked for, and now have, a response. The proposal is that we publish the response and forward it to the petitioner for comment within 14 days. Is that agreed? Agreed.

The next petition relates to services for male victims of domestic abuse. In fact, what it relates to is the lack of such services. This is an ongoing issue. It is one that has been in the media in the past number of weeks and is rarely, if ever, spoken about. I am conscious that male victims of domestic abuse might see this debate. I hope they understand that we hear them and do not believe this is an exclusively female issue, although we must acknowledge that women are over-represented in the category of the victims and survivors of domestic abuse.

That said, there is a lot of work to do in the area, not just in understanding male victims and survivors of domestic abuse, but also in the provision of services. I would be happy if this committee took this matter up and had a hearing. We can give voice to victims and survivors. We can also speak with the Department of justice about any plans it has.

I recently attended the launch of the Men's Aid report in Trinity College. Men's Aid also gave a presentation in the audiovisual room in Leinster House. They were real family stories. They were horrendous. This was largely down to the lack of access to domestic violence help and services for men. I am keen to progress this further.

I agree with Senator McCarthy and the Chair. We should do a piece of work on this very important issue. As well as engaging with the Department of justice, we might also engage with Safe Ireland, which is the agency with a remit in the area of gender-based violence, in particular violence against women. We need its input on this issue as well.

I agree with the Deputy. It is an important issue. I met with some of the people who visited Leinster House to give that presentation by Men's Aid. Karen Ryan is a woman I know and is a campaigner in this space. People are now talking about it and it is an issue we need to bring out in the open more and shine a light on. I would be happy if the committee considered having a hearing on it. For the moment, the proposal is that we publish the response from the Department of justice and that we forward it to the petitioner. We are going to schedule a hearing to discuss this as early as we can in the new year. I do not think it will be just one hearing either. We will hear from the petitioner, but we also need to hear from the Department and organisations such as Safe Ireland and Men's Aid. There is a body of work happening in this area as well. We need to zoom out a little bit and get a picture of what the services look like on a national level, if they are there at all. My understanding is that there is very little there. We can look at what is there and how it might be improved. Most importantly, we can give voice to victims in this scenario.

We also need to make sure that the shedding of the stigma that surrounds domestic violence against men is addressed.

That is a really important piece of work that we can do. Violence is violence. As a committee, we can give voice to those victims and shine a light on the issue. We can also play our part in lifting that stigma because that stigma grows and develops in the dark. As parliamentarians, it our job to shine a light on that.

Are the actions agreed in relation to the publication? Agreed. That concludes our consideration of public petitions. I invite members of the public to submit petitions via our online portal, which is available at petitions.oireachtas.ie. A petition may be addressed to the Houses of the Oireachtas on a matter of general public concern or interest, or an issue of public policy. Is there any other business, aon gnó eile? No.