Joint Committee on Public Service Oversight and Petitions díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 29 Apr 2015

Decisions on Public Petitions Received

Chairman

We are sitting as a joint sub-committee on petitions to record the decisions of the committee. The committee has received a total of 137 petitions to date since the launch of the petitions system. The secretariat has been examining them, first, to establish the admissibility of the petitions and, second, to assess how best to progress a petition for consideration by the joint sub-committee. A total of 126 of the petitions received have been brought before the committee on at least one occasion. Of these, the committee has disposed of 95; 53 were admissible, dealt with and closed, while 42 were inadmissible. There are five petitions to be discussed today and two further petitions to read correspondence into the record.

The first petition before us is No. P00062/12 of 2012, which is Enda Kenny and the Irish Government: Introduce Equality Budgeting, from Dr. Clara Fischer. The Equality Budgeting Campaign is a broad-based coalition of trade unions, non-governmental organisations, NGOs, and concerned individuals who are seeking the introduction of equality budgeting in Ireland. The campaign was founded in July 2012 in light of increases in inequality and poverty. This petition was discussed at meetings on 27 November 2013 and again on 22 January 2014, and the petitioner addressed the committee on 2 April 2014. This group also met with the Joint Committee on Education and Social Protection in 2014, whose report is noted in the committee's summary document.

We have agreed that we will write to the Department of Finance attaching a copy of the petition and requesting that in view of the proposal within the Department to set up a budget office, this committee would urge the Minister to establish an equality budget advisory group which could be made up of officials and representatives working in this sector and stating that we support the objectives in the petition. We will also write to the petitioner advising of the decision of the committee and close the petition. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Petition No. P00015/13 relates to extending the Freedom of Information Acts to include the Data Protection Commissioner and the Financial Services Ombudsman. The petitioner is Mr. Niall Kelly. The petitioner is calling for the Office of the Data Protection Commissioner and the Financial Services Ombudsman to come under the provisions of the Freedom of Information Acts. The joint sub-committee considered this petition at its meeting on 22 January 2014 and it was then referred to the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, recommending that the Minister fully include the Financial Services Ombudsman and the Data Protection Commissioner in the freedom of information legislation which he was preparing. As the Freedom of Information Bill was enacted on 14 October 2014 and both the Financial Services Ombudsman and the Data Protection Commissioner are now included under its remit, it is proposed that we forward a copy of the correspondence received and a link to the Freedom of Information Act 2014 to the petitioner and close the petition. We also noted that there are some caveats there that might limit the oversight and if that is the case, we will keep an eye on this into the future. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Petition No. P00024/13 relates to recruitment policy within RTE from Mr. Kevin Sharkey. This is a decision on which a previous meeting of this committee deliberated in private session and it was to be read into the record in public session, which we are doing now. The petition was about a perceived policy that within RTE the station only employed white people. The petitioner would like to see a more diverse RTE, with the station hiring people based on what they can do, not the colour of their skin. The committee discussed this petition on 25 March following research and e-mails from the petitioner. I forwarded the material and the response received from RTE to the petitioner and closed the petition. We understand that the petitioner is happy that the issues he raised have been addressed, so it is a satisfactory outcome. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Petition No. P00012/14 calls for a sworn inquiry into the appointment of two senior planning inspectors to the board of An Bord Pleanála. It is from Mr. Jim Connolly. The petitioner is calling for an independent inquiry into the appointment of two senior planning inspectors to the board of An Bord Pleanála in January 2002. He is claiming there was alleged collusion by the chairman of An Bord Pleanála, senior officials of the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government, ICTU, IMPACT and a Government Minister to allow the appointments to be made in the first place. This issue was discussed in 2008 by the Joint Committee on the Environment with the Irish Rural Dwellers Association, IRDA, and also with the then Minister. The Minister outlined the nominating and appointments process and stated that these had only recently been endorsed by the Oireachtas. Furthermore, it appears from transcripts of this meeting that no follow-up action was recommended.

This was discussed by this committee on 25 March this year and it was agreed to write to the petitioner asking him to identify clearly where the Minister breached the legislation.

A response was received by e-mail, which was forwarded to members.

Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett

As we discussed, the recommendation is that as far as we understand it - and we were pretty categoric about this - whatever about the rights and wrongs of the appointments or people's views on the appointments, they were within the legislation and in that sense there was not a breach of the legislation. There is not much more our committee can do about it. However, we have said that we have some interest in the issue of appointments to An Bord Pleanála and if the petitioner has issues about that more general question, that might be something he could consider petitioning on to examine ways to improve the appointments process for the board. That might be an interesting discussion for many people but there is not much more further we can go with the previous decision. It was a long time ago, which added to the difficulty and the issue also came before the environment committee in the past. That is the best we can offer the petitioner in this case.

Chairman

Is it agreed to close this petition? Agreed. It is open to Mr. Connolly to accept the invitation to discuss the broader issue of appointments if he wishes to do so.

Petition No. P00022/14 is the need for provision to be made for the compensation of victims of uninsured aircraft operators or other third parties suffering personal injury or loss as a result of air accidents where there is no insurance policy or the insurance policy has been repudiated. This is from Mr. John Dunphy and deals with correspondence No. 540 on our list. At the joint committee meeting of 14 January, it was agreed to refer this to the Joint Committee on Transport and Communications and close the petition. We have received welcome confirmation from the joint committee that at its meeting of 21 January, members agreed to consider the issue in the context of the committee’s work programme. We will forward a copy of the correspondence, which is positive news, to the petitioner and maintain it as a closed petition. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Petition No. P00031/14 seeks the restoration of self-builds in Ireland and is from Mrs. Amanda Gallagher. The petitioner is requesting the joint committee to call on the Government to repeal Building Control (Amendment) Regulation SI 9, which came into force on 1 March 2014, under which all construction of homes and extensions must go through a main building contractor. The committee has agreed following deliberation on two issues. This petition is deemed inadmissible, unfortunately, under Dáil Standing Order 165(1)(h) because the matter has gone before the Ombudsman. The Standing Order states:

(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 the Ombudsman, by another Ombudsman, or by a regulatory public body or a body established for the purpose of redress.

We, unfortunately, cannot accept the petition on that basis. We will write to the petitioner informing her that the Department is currently undertaking a review of SI 9 of 2014, which includes a public consultation process that is open for submissions up until 15 May 2015. That is important because it gives her time to have an input into that. As the review is addressing the issues raised, the petition is now closed. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Our final petition is No. P00008/15, retain tariff C for taxi journeys, from Mr. James Waldron. The petition background is there will be changes to the taxi tariff applied by taxi drivers from 30 April 2015. From the information supplied by the petitioner, it appears tariff rate C will be reduced by 32 cent per kilometer. However, this is in the context of an approximate overall 4% increase and takes into account the use of new technologies such as taxi apps. The petitioner is also looking for meters to be amended free of charge to allow for the inclusion of tolls and tunnels on receipts. He is also suggesting the introduction of a charge for the carriage of luggage. We have deliberated on the petition and I invite Deputy Boyd Barrett to comment on our decision.

Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett

I have been in considerable communication with a number of taxi drivers. The petitioner is a member of the National Private Hire & Taxi Association, NPHTA, which is one of the largest taxi driver representative organisations. They are annoyed over the manner in which this tariff change has been implemented and they have cause to be. There were protests about this a while ago because they say the change to tariff C, which relates to long journeys outside the normal locale of a driver for which there is a higher charge because they are not allowed to pick up outside their normal locale, would affect them adversely. They also have to have their meters recalibrated and resealed and so on, which is a cost to them. They had not asked for this and they are not happy. They feel the majority of taxi drivers are opposed to this and the public consultation process relating to this was inadequate. The National Transport Authority, NTA, in the correspondence dealing with the petition, said that it followed the rules of the public consultation and submissions process but the drivers say that while that may be the case, it is an inadequate process. There may have been many other submissions but they point out, for example, that they alone submitted a petition signed by 500 taxi drivers opposing this change. They say the majority of taxi drivers oppose it and they do not believe these submissions were adequately taken on board or treated seriously by the NTA in making its decision to change the tariffs.

In my experience, their concerns have been borne out because I tabled a parliamentary question on their behalf to the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport to view the public submissions on this to see what they said and I asked whether the NTA took on board the views of stakeholders. The NTA wrote back to me and said it would not give that information because it is not the authority's practice to do this and it is not required to do so. That is unacceptable. In many other processes which involve public consultation, we can read the submissions, objections and so on and we are able to adjudicate in an open and transparent way whether the statutory body or group is taking stakeholders seriously. If we believe in public consultation and participation and democratic revolutions and all that stuff, then what the stakeholders say should be taken seriously. It appears that has not been the case here. We do not even know what the story is because the NTA will not tell us.

There is a problem in that the petitioner is asking us to retain tariff C. We probably cannot do that but it is within our remit to examine the public consultation process and whether it is adequate and whether changes need to be made in the context of transparency and accountability. We should ask the petitioner to resubmit his petition, foregrounding the issue of the inadequacy of the public consultation process, the lack of transparency and the need to have a better, more transparent process. That would us give the opportunity to examine the issue and hear the different sides of the argument.

Chairman

Is it agreed to close the petition but to invite the petitioner, as Deputy Boyd Barrett suggested, to resubmit? When he does that, we will prioritise the petition because it has been in the system for a while. Is that agreed? Agreed.

We will now go back into private session to deal with the report on the direct provision system from our committee.

The committee went into private session at 5.10 p.m. and adjourned at 5.55 p.m. until 4 p.m. on Wednesday, 13 May 2015.