Joint Committee on Public Service Oversight and Petitions debate -
Wednesday, 21 Nov 2012

Decisions on Public Petitions Received

Chairman

We are in public session. It is important at this stage to point out that we have received 44 petitions since this process was initially established. That demonstrates the level of demand among the public for a committee of this nature. The petitions are being examined so we can decide how best to progress them and establish if they are admissible to the committee currently. All members have been circulated with a note on the committee and it is important that we now adjudicate on those petitions.

The first petition we will look at is P00027/12 from Mr. John O'Sullivan on issues arising from his experience with the Employment Appeals Tribunal. As members will be aware, Mr. O'Sullivan's petition looks at the length of time it takes to process claims with the EAT, the need to employ a legal team, the fact the tribunal currently has no powers to enforce rules, the need for employers to lodge a security bond with the tribunal in advance of hearings and qualifications of appointed liquidators and the fact they are not currently affiliated to a regulator body. Does anyone have anything they would like to add on this petition?

It is an important petition that addresses the experiences of many workers. The petition has been relayed to the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation, who has come back to us with a detailed letter. He has been dealing with this issue himself with the petitioner. The Minister is seeking to put together legislation on workplace relations and has given a commitment to deal with the issues detailed in the petition. The proposal is that we allow the Minister to deal with the elements in the petition, we will leave the petition open and keep an eye out to ensure its objectives are being dealt with and we will revisit it in six months to see where we are. Is that agreed? Agreed.

The next petition for consideration is P00028/12 from Mr. Michael O'Flanagan of the Kilmainham and Inchicore Heritage Group, concerning the preservation of Kilmainham mill. It is an important example of built heritage and this group wants to add the mill to the existing built heritage in the area, which includes Kilmainham Gaol and the Royal Hospital Kilmainham. Perhaps Deputy Conaghan might like to add some points to this.

Deputy Michael Conaghan

There is an opportunity for the Inchicore and Kilmainham Heritage Group to acquire the mill with the assistance of the city council and the OPW. In attempting to do that, the group must appeal to NAMA, which is the current owner. NAMA indicated to us at an earlier meeting that there is an affordable price for this artefact. To help the initiative by the heritage group, it would be beneficial if the committee made a statement on the importance of the process so the mill would be retained and safeguarded in perpetuity, adding immeasurably to our industrial heritage.

Senator Trevor Ó Clochartaigh

This is a very important issue and we must ensure this sort of heritage is looked after. I suggest, however, that it is not necessarily for this committee to make a statement of that nature because we are supposed to highlight issues of systemic importance, where there are problems with the system not working. I suggest the expertise for this sort of issue lies with the Joint Committee on the Environment, Culture and the Gaeltacht and, therefore, the power of any statement might be greater if it came from it because it deals with such issues on a regular basis. I suggest we send the petition to that committee and ask it to consider making a statement in support of the aims of the Inchicore and Kilmainham Heritage Group.

Deputy Peter Mathews

Deputy Conaghan and Senator Ó Clochartaigh made excellent points. I am also in favour of referring the matter to the Joint Committee on the Environment, Culture and the Gaeltacht.

Chairman

Is the proposal made by Senator Ó Clochartaigh agreed? Agreed. We wish the group in question the best of luck with the matter.

The next petition is P00044/12 from Mr. Daniel Donovan for the revision of postal ballot rules and P00069/12, which seeks to have current legislation changed to allow Irish citizens who are temporarily based overseas to vote by post from their overseas address. Members were circulated with details of the petitions, which address an important issue for elected representatives and the growing diaspora. Last year, 87,000 people, including 40,000 Irish citizens, emigrated, the highest figure since the 1800s. It is important that we find a means of allowing these individuals to engage with the discourse of society. The experience of those who emigrated in the 1950s and 1980s was that they no longer had any interaction with the State, except where they returned to Ireland, and were forgotten in this country. The infrastructure for political discourse did not draw them in. There is merit in many elements of the petitions. The inaugural meeting of the convention on the constitution will be held on 1 December and a functioning meeting will take place in January 2013. As a preliminary step, it is recommended that the petitions be referred to the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government for consideration as the two issues in question fall directly within his remit. Does anyone wish to comment?

Senator Trevor Ó Clochartaigh

I concur with the points made by the Chairman. The voice of the citizen must be paramount in a democracy. A significant number of people feel disenfranchised at election time. I experienced this issue personally when I was abroad during a number of elections for which I would have liked my vote to have been counted. As a Legislature, we should ensure that a mechanism is established, where practicable, for people to make their voice heard by casting a vote. For this reason, it would be appropriate for the joint committee to refer the petitions to the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government and seek a statement on the matter from the Minister.

Chairman

Is the proposal agreed? Agreed.

We will deal now with a number of petitions grouped together. The issue raised is the absence of legislation imposing height restrictions for trees. This is an important issue to a number of families. The petitions are P00050/12 from Mr. Michael Byrne, P00070/12 from Mr. Denis Moran and P00071/12 from Dr. Jean Clarke. Members have been circulated with the petitions. There is nothing in legislation which vindicates the right of a family not to have an imposition placed on them as a result of a tall tree or hedge. I refer, for example, to problems with light. It can cost up to €20,000 to have a dispute about the height of trees resolved. The issue comes under the remit of the Anti-Social Behaviour Act in England and Wales and the High Hedges (Northern Ireland) Act in the North. The Minister for Justice and Equality is considering legislation which would entitle homeowners to adequate light. He also proposes to introduce a mediation Bill to promote the use of mediation to resolve issues of this nature. In our view, the issue of trees falls within the remit of the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government. It is suggested, as a first step, that the joint committee submit the relevant petitions to the Department requesting feedback from the Minister on his willingness to produce legislation to resolve problems of this nature.

Deputy Peter Mathews

The issue raised in the petitions is common, especially in urban areas and falls within planning and environmental considerations. Noise pollution is the subject of legal controls. The issue of tall trees and hedges could be addressed by considering a tall tree a threat to personal safety in storm conditions as falling trees or branches can cause damage to people and property. This is a current, topical and widespread problem and it would be appropriate to refer it to the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government.

Deputy Michael Healy-Rae

I concur with Deputy Mathews that this is a much more common problem than many people would believe. Reading the petitions one could conclude that it is a minor and unimportant issue when the opposite is the case. As Deputy Mathews noted, the issue of safety arises. I am aware of numerous incidents of people being badly hurt by falling trees and branches, including, the unfortunate case of a neighbour of mine, a man with a young family, who was killed by a falling tree while driving. That case occurred in the 1980s.

Deputy Peter Mathews

Last year, the former Lord Mayor of Dublin experienced a family bereavement as a result of a tree being blown down in a storm.

Deputy Michael Healy-Rae

This is a practical issue which is crying out for legislation. An aggrieved person, namely, someone residing adjacent to a property with an excessively high tree or hedge, does not have legal recourse if the owner of the adjoining property refuses to co-operate and behave like a good neighbour. If a law is not in place to provide assistance in such circumstances, we should do everything in our power to help. Legislation would be worthwhile if, God forbid, it helped to save a person's life five or ten years from now. We owe the petitioners a debt of gratitude for bringing this matter to public attention. How many people are putting up with this problem rather than broaching the subject with a neighbour with whom they may be friends? I am fully in favour of taking action to provide some assistance in these cases. I support the proposal to refer the matter to the Minister.

Deputy Michael Conaghan

Dublin City Council gets involved in issues of this nature, particularly where the householder is elderly. Staff from the council's landscape service will call to a house and suggest to the householder that a tree be cut back. Local authorities are already taking action to address dangerous cases such as those to which the petitions refer but they should be given formal powers to intervene. Local authorities have a presence in every community through their local offices, their staff are well known to local people and they enjoy considerable credibility. When their staff call to houses to raise all sorts of issues, many of which may not be within their formal jurisdiction, people tend to take notice. It would not be a major task to produce legislation which gave local authorities formal power to intervene in the circumstances described. In the first instance, they should advise homeowners that a tree's height creates an impending danger. They could then suggest various courses of action, as they do already in cases where the homeowner is elderly.

At the moment some homeowners are unable to do the work themselves. There is a kind of practice which could be built on and formalised.

Senator Trevor Ó Clochartaigh

I thank the petitioners for raising the issue. It seems like a small issue but it is quite important. I commend the secretariat on the background work done to get us the information which shows that there is a legislative loophole which has been closed in other jurisdictions. I would hope it will not impinge on something like the constitutional right to property. We have seen things like this happen in that because it is property which someone owns, matters will be difficult. However, the suggestion to ask the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government to examine this matter and introduce a national guideline, legislation or a statutory instrument to deal with this which would give clarity to all local authorities would seem the right way to go. I am sure he will advise us on that and I agree with that recommendation.

Deputy Peter Mathews

It falls within the area of planning. In certain developments there can be orders to retain trees in public parkland areas or to get rid of trees for the purposes of roads or pathways. If they have not formalised it already they are tip-toeing to it.

Chairman

Is the proposal agreed? Agreed. That concludes the meeting.

The joint committee adjourned at 5.33 p.m. until 12 noon on Thursday, 6 December 2012.