I thank members for their engagement on the very informative petition we considered before the suspension.

I propose that we now deal with consideration of the public petitions that are before us. We must consider whether the petitions considered by the committee at this meeting and at previous meetings may be published and whether the replies from the Departments and the other bodies may also be published. Is that agreed? Agreed.

We have four petitions for consideration. I will read through the petitions and the actions taken to date by the secretariat. I will subsequently go through what members' feelings are on each petition.

The first is petition is P00072/25, to extend communications data retention for critical evidence, from Ms Jennifer Williams. This petition is to extend communications data retention or introduce mandatory preservation of electronic communication for critical evidence and calls for the Oireachtas to review the current 12-month communications data retention limit and to consider extending retention or mandatory preservation for cases involving domestic violence, stalking or coercive control, where investigations and court proceedings frequently exceed one year.

Ms Williams states she is "petitioning the Oireachtas to review the 12-month limit for retention of mobile and communications data under the Communications (Retention of Data) Acts and related Garda procedures". She goes on to state:

In cases of domestic violence, harassment, coercive control or breaches of protection orders, Garda investigations and court proceedings frequently last far longer than one year. Critical electronic evidence such as text messages, call records, or cell-site data is often deleted before a case reaches court. Gardaí also do not consistently request preservation of this data within the available time, or analyse metadata and sender details promptly, leaving victims without essential proof. I ask that the Oireachtas consider reform to:

a. Extend data retention to at least six years for cases involving protective or restraining orders; and-or

b. Create a statutory duty for Gardaí to request and preserve relevant communications data immediately when a complaint or protection order is filed.

Such reform would apply to active criminal or protective proceedings and would protect victims' access to justice while remaining proportionate to privacy rights.

That was the petition submitted. In respect of the actions that have been taken to resolve this petition in advance of submitting, the petitioner stated:

I have previously raised related concerns with the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission. However, a broader systemic problem remains. In some cases, Gardaí fail to verify the sender of electronic communications or to issue preservation requests for critical evidence within the short data-retention period, resulting in court cases subsequently struck out. Once this happens, a complaint to the Ombudsman or other redress body is already too late, and victims are effectively denied justice. Legislative reform and clear Garda procedures are needed to prevent this recurring.

I will note the actions taken by the secretariat to this point. On 7 November 2025, the secretariat wrote to the Department of Justice, Home Affairs and Migration seeking a response advising its views within 14 days. On 5 December 2025, the secretariat received a response from the Department. I recommend that we, as a committee, publish the correspondence and the response from the Department of Justice and forward it to the petitioner for comment within 14 days. Do members have any views on this petition?

I understand where the petitioner is coming from. It is a common-sense approach. A case might not get into court for a year and a half and the data, which is technically evidence, is not there.

I see that the response from the Department states that it is in the programme for Government to commit to enacting new data retention legislation. I suggest that we write to the Department to find out where that new data retention legislation is and to seek an answer for the petitioner, if that is possible.

Would the Deputy like to propose that?

I propose that. New data retention legislation is coming up. The committee can write to the Department to ask what stage that is at so at least we have an answer for the petitioner. I propose that the committee write to the Department.

Do we have a seconder?

I second that.

In terms of the specifics of the petition, the proposals within the data retention Bill as it will be introduced to the Oireachtas are on the retention of data specifically for these kinds of cases of domestic abuse or domestic violence. If there are ongoing investigations, it means there should be a higher bar for the deletion of data, specifically if that will be critical to the pursuit of justice.

It has been proposed to write to the Department of justice to seek an update on the matter outlined in the programme for Government to update to legislation. I think we are in agreement about that. Is that agreed? Agreed. Is it agreed to forward the correspondence to the petitioner for comment? Agreed.

I thank the Leas-Chathaoirleach.

Our second petition today is P00076/25 - allow the exchange of EU driving licences that were originally issued in exchange. Mr. Numan Karahan petitions for allowing exchange of EU driving licences that were originally issued in exchange for certain non-recognised third countries, such as Türkiye, or provide a fair transitional route. He is an Irish citizen by naturalisation holding a valid EU driving licence issued from Poland that was self-issued in exchange for his original Turkish licence. The NDLS and RSA have refused his application for an exchange on the grounds that Ireland will not exchange his licence because the originating country is not on Ireland's recognised exchange list. As a result, despite years of safe driving here, he is required to restart the licensing pathway, learner permit, lessons and L and N plates, which causes hardship.

He respectfully asks the Oireachtas to recommend that the Minister for Transport and the RSA review this policy and introduce a pathway that recognises demonstrable driving experience in Ireland and comparable licensing standards and considers transitional arrangements, such as a competency check or shortened test route, pending any EU-level updates on recognising exchanges from specific third countries. This issue affects many long-term drivers who are fully compliant and insured yet face unnecessary duplication and stigma. He has attempted to resolve the matter directly with the NDLS and the RSA and has contacted the Department of Transport. He now seeks the committee's assistance.

The action taken by the petitioner was that he has contacted the Department of Transport. The actions taken by the secretariat to date include that on 7 November, the secretariat wrote to the Department of Transport seeking response within 14 days. On 28 November, it received a response. I propose that the committee publishes the response from the Department of Transport and corresponds with the petitioner to forward them on the correspondence and ask them for comment within 14 days. Do members have any views on that matter?

None, except to agree with it.

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Our next petition is P00082/2025 - Laois County Council granting quarry permission to exploit Slieve Bloom resources for no economic gain from Ms Katherina Phelan. It is about Laois County Council's decision to grant planning permission for the development of a 20-acre quarry in the Slieve Bloom Mountains, bordering both an SPA and an SAC and is home to the hen harrier project, which has received millions of euro in Government funding. It will generate €133,000 over ten years - a rate of €0.16 per tonne as the contribution to Laois County Council in return for 800,000 tonnes of material. It will lead to employment of one full time position, as per the planning application. On the transport route, materials will be hauled on local roads across Laois and Offaly, terminating in Kinnegad, County Westmeath, with over 50% exported to the UK and beyond.

The economic return to County Laois is negligible, with massive environmental and infrastructural impact. The quarry's operations will place heavy transport demands on minor local roads, including single lane heritage bridges not designed for such use. There is no political or administrative scrutiny of this project's broader implications for residents' health and safety and heritage preservation. Given the lack of financial benefit to Laois - €133,000 over a decade - is negligible compared to the potential long-term environmental and infrastructural costs, the petitioner respectfully urges the committee to review the public interest, oversight and value for money aspects of this decision. She queries the alignment of planning approvals with national conservation objectives and economic justification for such developments in environmentally sensitive areas, as well as the transparency and accountability of the process by which such permissions are granted.

She requests the committee considers examining this matter to ensure public funds, policies and natural heritage are being appropriately safeguarded. Community apathy and no political support from anyone means that their voices will not be heard if this is not highlighted for the ridiculous proposal it is. The cost to the area and counties involved for no economic gain just seems bizarre, if not addressed at some level. Ms Phelan asks whether it a case that councils must comply with Government demands, irrespective of the impact or loss to its communities. That was the contribution by the petitioner.

When asked whether any actions were taken, the petitioner said none, other than submissions to Laois County Council and An Coimisiún Pleanála. The actions taken by our secretariat here involved writing to Laois County Council on 27 November 2025 seeking a response and advising of its views within 14 days. On 28 November, the secretariat received a response from Laois County Council. As a committee, we should publish the response from Laois County Council and the correspondence from Laois County Council should be forwarded to the petitioner for comment within 14 days. Is that agreed or do members have any views on this matter?

That is agreed.

That is agreed, okay. I thank the committee. We will forward that for comment within 14 days.

Our last petition of the day is P00083/2025 and is to save maternity services at Portiuncula University Hospital from the Portiuncula Maternity Alliance. I welcome Deputies Martin Daly and Louis O'Hara to the committee today. They are not on this committee but I know this is a matter very close to both of their hearts. I also welcome Councillor Evelyn Parsons to the Visitor's Gallery. Dr. Parsons is very welcome.

I will read out the petition. It is quite long and there quite a lot of actions that have been taken to date but it is worth reading it all into the record and going through it in detail.

Portiuncula Maternity Alliance submits this petition representing mothers, families, clinicians, healthcare workers, representatives, communities across eight counties, opposing downgrading maternity services Portiuncula (PUH).

1. Want accountability and transparency - decision made without review findings report recommendation to downgrade.

2. No medical evidence/objective analysis to justify decision.

3. No consultation published risk/impact assessments or analysis of safety/capacity in receiving units.

4. Without comparative data, [there is] no evidence other units are safer.

5. Limits women’s choice creates barriers to equitable access and undermines rights under Public Sector Equality and Human Rights Duty (IHREC Act 2014), Patient Safety Act 2023. Disproportionately impacts rural women/families - highest deprivation and dependency.

6. Fears high-risk women at higher/unexplored risks without robust analysis/independent review.

7. UHG -no recent HIQA maternity-specific inspection; Mullingar’s 2025 inspection raised staffing safety concerns.

8. No published analysis of impacts on mortality, emergency response times, ambulance availability, access barriers for rural women.

9. No conclusive evidence that PUH is an outlier on clinical metrics.

10. Publish all data, risk assessments, and equality impact analysis.

11. Commission an independent review of the downgrade decision and examine the basis of broadening band of High-Risk maternity categories vs existing National Clinical Guidelines.

12. Require HIQA maternity-specific inspections of receiving units/PUH.

13. Support reinstatement of safe, resourced maternity services PUH, full implementation of Report recommendations.

14. Liaise with Oireachtas Committees Health, PAC, Equality, Children who may have role and DPER - use of public resources.

15. Safety of women and babies is non-negotiable. This decision must be scrutinised for public safety, accountability- access to safe maternity services PUH reinstated.

There are manual files as well as the online petition of under 5000 signatures (plus approximately 10,000 signatures manual - 15,000 in total- which can be delivered to the Oireachtas Petitions Committee. Clinician concerns, health staff, ambulance, GPs re services for their patients and referrals. Absence of published data raised serious concerns. Without robust risk assessments, equality impact analysis, and independent review, there is no assurance that the decision improves safety. On the contrary, there are fears within the community that high-risk women may be placed at higher and unexplored risks, as the implications of increased travel times, emergency response delays, and capacity pressures in receiving units remain unexamined. PUH is the most accessible unit in the Country - 800 meters off the motorway. It is inevitable that emergencies, high risk, will attend and a fear that the unit will be left with inadequate resources. Due to its location, staff, resources and accessibility, PUH staff has saved many lives and treated emergency obstetric cases. Some high-risk women are refusing to go elsewhere. Where does the clinical responsibility rest for unintended consequences which may arise and how are staff supported to carry these risks. Among the maternity units in Saolta Group of Hospitals, PUH has the highest rating for Maternal Experience Satisfaction on repeated Surveys - 2020- and 2025 The community has sought clarity on clinical metrics, Serious Reportable Events, comparative analysis and HIQA inspection findings across all affected units. To date, these have not been disclosed. Decisions of this magnitude must be grounded in transparent, evidence-based analysis. Not assumptions or incomplete information.

That is the petition as it stands. I will now read out the actions that have been taken by the Portiuncula Maternity Alliance group in advance of submitting this petition:

On behalf of the Portiuncula Maternity Alliance and the wider community, we oppose the downgrading of maternity services at Portiuncula University Hospital (PUH), a Saolta hospital serving women across eight counties in the West, Midlands, and Mid-West. This petition follows months of sustained engagement and advocacy.

The Walker Report (2014-2018) issued 154 safety and infrastructural recommendations for PUH, including shared governance with Galway Maternity (UHG).

Jan 2025 HSE West- announced their appointment of an 'External' Management Team to Maternity PUH reporting structure to HSE West while reviews into care at PUH Maternity -12 cases.

9 July 2025: Downgrade of maternity services PUH by HSE West announced while only 5 of 12 maternity case reviews had concluded, no recommendation of a downgrade on report.

22 July: PMA, Portiuncula Maternity Alliance, launched petition; 15,000 signatures gathered within weeks. 5 August: Public meeting in Ballinasloe (300 attendees).

16 August: Protest march (3,500 participants).

July, Sept: Media coverage, radio, papers (RTE, TG4), patient testimonials, and community lobbying to their public reps

Sept: Motions passed at local councils and Regional Health Forum West; cross-party support in Dáil and Seanad; PQs and Health Committee interventions, Minister questions. Representation to PAC - questions to HSE CEO Repeated calls for transparency, risk assessments, equality impact analysis, and independent review, all unanswered by HSE. No reinstatement plan or commitment.

Despite these efforts, the HSE has not provided full data disclosure or equality assessment. This decision disproportionately affects rural women in areas of highest deprivation and dependency, raising serious concerns under the Public Sector Equality and Human Rights Duty (IHREC Act 2014) and obligations in the Patient Safety Act 2023.

We now seek the Committee’s intervention to ensure transparency, accountability, independent review, and reinstatement of safe, resourced maternity services at PUH.

Legal References: IHREC Act 2014, Section 42, Equality and Human Rights Duty Patient Safety Act 2023, Duty of Transparency and Safety HIQA remit under Health Act 2007, Independent maternity inspections.

As the members can all see, this is well-documented. It is also a petition that is close to my heart as I was born in Portiuncula and know so many people from my constituency who work there and contribute every day to offer an amazing service. Our job, as public representatives, is to support them.

On the action taken by the secretariat, in December 2025, the secretariat wrote to the Health Service Executive seeking a response and advising of its views within 14 days. When we received the petition, it was sent to the Department of Health looking for a response within 14 days. On 24 December 2025, the secretariat received a response from the Health Service Executive. The correspondence from the Health Service Executive is to be forwarded to the petitioner for information. That is the first recommendation.

In consideration of the response from the Health Service Executive and the closing remarks of the Cathaoirleach of the health committee on 17 December 2025 at the end of its exhaustive meeting with the Health Service Executive on the subject matter:

I thank the HSE for its engagement on the matter. As I have said, given the context and the concerns regarding maternity services at Portiuncula hospital, we will keep this matter under consideration. We will also consider the new national strategy.

and as a result of the fact that the health committee is keeping this matter under consideration, the petitions committee is not in a position, or the right place, to continue the consideration of this petition at this point. I recommend that we close this petition. We will advise the petitioner that the issues are before the health committee, and it will deal with this matter going forward.

What is important here, and we discussed this in private session, is that we, as a committee, write to the health committee asking that the Portiuncula Maternity Alliance be invited before the health committee to have an opportunity to allow Members of the Oireachtas ask the alliance about its perspective on the unfolding matters and issues, including the review and the external management team review that is ongoing at Portiuncula.

We have two recommendations. The first is that the response gets forwarded to the petitioner. The second is that, given this is before the health committee at the moment, which is the best place for it to be dealt with, the petition be closed. I have also put forward a third proposal that we write to the health committee to ask that it invites the Portiuncula Maternity Alliance before it. Do the members have any views?

It is a very important issue. The maternity services in Portiuncula serve pregnant women across seven different counties. Last summer, we had the decision to move a significant number of the high-risk pregnancies away from Portiuncula following a number of the case reviews. The petition sets out very well the concerns in relation to that, including the impact it will have on women and the barriers this decision has put in place for many women from rural communities in particular in terms of travel times and other issues that make it difficult to access maternity services elsewhere.

I understand that, to date, five case reviews are ongoing, but of the reviews that have been completed, the vast majority of the recommendations have been implemented. The key actions set out in this petition on accountability, transparency, for an independent review of the decision, and ultimately the reinstatement of safe and resourced maternity services at Portiuncula and a full implementation of the report recommendations are very sensible actions and ones that I hope that we will see going forward.

As I see it, the main concern is that neither the HSE nor the Minister have been able to commit to a plan to restore full maternity services at Portiuncula for the high-risk cases and for what is required for that to happen. People locally have legitimate concerns about the future of maternity services in the area and what they see as a downgrading of the services being provided at the hospital. We need clarity on the future and a road map to full restoration of services and what it is going to take to ensure that can be done in a safe manner and in a way that is in the best interests of all the people and all the women and children in the local community. I commend the Portiuncula Maternity Alliance on its work on this issue. As I said, it is an extremely important petition. I understand the Leas-Chathaoirleach's comments about the actions that are being recommended and I do hope that this is something the health committee can take up again and bring some further scrutiny to bear on.

I thank the Deputy. I know this is something he has been working on locally as well. It is something all Deputies, Senators and councillors right across Galway and the wider eight counties that are impacted by the change at Portiuncula are very passionate about. Ultimately, we all want to see the best outcomes for the people we represent. Every mother across the west who has benefited from a fantastic service at Portiuncula needs to be able to continue to do so into the future. As public representatives, we have a responsibility to make sure they are safe, protected and that the service they get is top class.

I welcome the maternity alliance and Councillor Parsons. There are 12 case reviews - five ongoing - and I want to remember those mothers and their babies, some of whom were not delivered. We need to remember that. I also remember the staff who are involved in Portiuncula. There are many fine people involved in the maternity unit there who have been put under the spotlight and are working under extremely difficult circumstances.

What is really important is that we have brought this under the spotlight. I have brought it to the floor of the Dáil and to the Taoiseach, Tánaiste and Minister for Health. We brought the HSE to the health committee on 17 December 2025. I was not entirely satisfied with everything we heard that day.

I want to put this into context. First, the HSE west and north-west's approach to this was ham-fisted. There is no doubt about that. There was miscommunication. There was a poor handling of the situation, not just with the staff in Portiuncula maternity unit, but also in the way that information was given to the wider public and to the general practitioners in the area, and I made those views very clear.

There was also confusion about the implementation of the Walker report from 2018. It was absolutely clear when I read the Walker report and the first seven reviews of the Coulter Smith report that the Walker report had not been implemented. That was something that Mr. Bernard Gloster, CEO of the HSE, confirmed at a health committee meeting. He said that, in his view, if one went through the recommendations of the Walker report, it was clear to any independent observer that it was not fully implemented. The Minister took a different view, and the regional executive officer, REO, of HSE west and north-west took a different view. When we got to 17 December after those engagements on the floor of the Dáil, though, the HSE changed its position somewhat. Its position now was that Walker had been implemented but had not been sustained. More confusion, more obfuscation. That does not help a situation where there are apprehensive mothers who are planning to deliver and their families.

Why are the communities in east Galway, Roscommon and the surrounding counties worried? They are worried about access to high-quality services. One of the key parts of the Walker report was the joint governance model. We had the HSE and the Department in talking about the national maternity strategy a number of weeks ago. They talked about networking, namely, networks of hospitals that would have joint governance. I still cannot get from HSE west and north-west information on who made the decision in 2023 to dissolve the joint governance model, with one hospital and two sides. We still do not have the rationale. It is simply not good enough for the REO to come before the health committee and say that it was not working. Why was it not working? Why was it not made to work? Is that not what good management is about? That is why we have ended up in this situation again.

We only have seven of the reviews from the Coulter Smith report out of the 12. We should await the outcome of those reviews of the other five before any more decisions are made.

There is also some confusion between the REO of HSE west and north-west and the Minister. In fairness, the Minister has said she is minded to change her position in relation to the movement of more complex pregnancies to UHG provided she is satisfied that all of the recommendations of the Coulter Smith report are implemented. However, the REO has a different position and does not envisage that happening. For example, when this was set out first, we were told that all women with gestational diabetes were going to be sent to Galway. It did not come out in a written form, but that was what was being communicated. That position changed. That affected 200 women who would deliver. Portiuncula hospital has an excellent gestational diabetic unit. We now have a commitment that those women will deliver in Portiuncula hospital and continue to have the management of their gestational diabetes at that unit.

The issue around access to services is critical. East Galway and south Roscommon, particularly Ballinasloe, have high deprivation index figures. That means we have a focus of people. For example, according to a survey we did in Ballinasloe - Ballinasloe social services did a survey as well - the ownership of a car there is well below the national average. There is poor access to services. There are new communities in the Ballinasloe area. The real concern is not that complex cases will be sent to Galway, but that women who have normal pregnancies will not be able to access a service, and certainly will not go to Galway to access that. Herein lies the risk. Some of those women, who will be considered as coming from a deprived background with the least resources, will end up presenting at the hospital in late pregnancy without any previous care. We need to get the HSE west and north-west to put in place a logistical plan to make sure that that service is delivered and is accessible for those women.

I am happy with the recommendations of the committee that have been outlined. We will be keeping a watching brief on this at the health committee. The Chairman, Deputy Rice, undertook to do that. I will be following up on that. I certainly would be happy to have the Portiuncula Maternity Alliance at that committee to outline its concerns around the whole handling of this issue.

I am well aware of the case. Obviously, I am not from Galway, as people can hear from the accent, but I suspect that there would be a few mirror images of this. I congratulate the petitioners on their fight. I have listened to the speakers. They have made extremely valid points. This is a common-sense approach to a common-sense solution to the issues, concerns and problems outlined in the petition. It is not rocket science to see where this should be addressed. I am very pleased at the direction of the Leas-Chathaoirleach and the wider committee to put this matter where it should be, namely, before the health committee, as it gives that committee's members the opportunity to bring the Department of Health or the relevant Ministers back in.

It is very hard to make a cake when one does not have all the ingredients. If we are missing five reviews out of that 12, we do not have the full story or full evidence. We know the way they love evidence-based fact.

I am very happy. In the petitions committee, absolutely anything could come in here. This committee is not political. We take a common-sense approach to what we want to do. It is for those who put their faith in this committee. If we can resolve it here, we will resolve it. If we cannot, we will put petitioners on a pathway to those who have more authority or capability to get answers for them. I welcome that the recommendation is to send this matter to the health committee. I wish everyone in the group the very best of luck. It is 2026, not 1906, and we are talking about serious complications that can be resolved. I am very proud that the front-line staff were mentioned and thanked. They never get thanked. I am black and blue from hearing it on all aspects when it comes to the HSE. Front-line staff are absolutely amazing. The problem always seems to be with managers.

Gabhaim buíochas leis an Deputy Buckley. I thank Deputies O'Hara and Daly for their contributions. I thank Dr. Evelyn Parsons for being present from the Portiuncula Maternity Alliance.

Members have had a chance to consider the petition and I have put forward three proposals. The first proposal is that we forward the HSE's response to the petitioners. Is that agreed? Agreed.

The second proposal is to close the petition and advise the Portiuncula Maternity Alliance of same. Is that agreed? Agreed.

The third proposal is to write to the health committee asking that the Portiuncula Maternity Alliance be invited in to speak to it. Is that agreed? Agreed.

As Deputy Daly outlined, there is a lot of confusion out there. There are still a lot of questions to be answered about decision making, processes and appointments. Everything around this entire situation leads to more questions than answers at times. Our role as representatives is to help in any way we can, whether it is through parliamentary questions, oral parliamentary questions or freedom of information requests. Whatever way we can give our support to get the information that we need to the Portiuncula Maternity Alliance to support it in its endeavours, we are available to help and support.

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.

Moving on to the next business on the agenda, do members have any other issues they wish to raise?

I thank the staff, committee secretariat and the case workers for this. We get the synopsis of it, but they have to do the bread-and-butter stuff. I thank them for their work.

I thank our team here and our secretariat. All decisions have been dealt with.