Adjournment Debate. - Legal Aid Board. – Dáil Éireann (27th Dáil) – Wednesday, 25 Jan 1995

Adjournment Debate. - Legal Aid Board.

Dr. Woods

I was very concerned about the alleged interference by the Minister in the day-to-day operation of a State-aided board made in the Sunday Independent of 22 January 1995. The article was headed “Minister ordered confidential files to be removed from Dublin office” and another read, “Taylor's interference sparks legal board row”.

Will the Minister for Equality and Law Reform confirm that on the days leading up to last Christmas a senior member of his departmental staff, under his direction, called to the Dublin headquarters of the Legal Aid Board when the chief executive and the assistant chief executive were absent and removed files? Will the Minister confirm also that that official subjected Legal Aid Board staff to questioning which continued late into the evening and that his departmental official ordered members of the staff not to discuss what had happened or what was said to their superiors in the Legal Aid Board? Will he confirm that it is his view, as expressed on "Morning Ireland" last Monday that the Legal Aid Board is not independent in the exercise of its functions under the civil legal aid scheme? Will the Minister further acknowledge that this action by him constitutes a gross and unwarranted political interference in the internal affairs of an independent board?

Why did the Minister not raise his concerns with the Chairman or the chief executive of the board or was it not a simple matter to inquire from the Legal Aid Board the basis on which the appointment was made? I understand the appointment was fully above board and in keeping with the best practice. Did the Minister not consider the embarrassment which his action might cause to the woman who got the job and to the members of the board? I consider the key question is whether the Minister knew that an instruction was issued by his Department to an official to order staff in the Legal Aid Board not to disclose to their superiors what had happened or what was said during the inquiry. Did the Minister issue the instruction, approve of the steps taken or know what had been done? If he did, then he is gravely at fault in undermining the independence of this important board which has had widespread support. The very least he should do in the circumstances is to apologise to the board and to the House. I invite the Minister to reply.

Minister for Equality and Law Reform (Mr. Taylor)

I assume the Deputy's information is based on reports in a newspaper on Sunday last, 22 January 1995, which allege interference by me with the Legal Aid Board's independence. While matters about staffing in general were raised in that press report the Deputy's concerns, it would seem, are with that part of the press report which relates to the inquiry which I established to answer queries which unions representing law centre solicitors — MSF and SIPTU — had about the appointment made by the board to the post of solicitor-in-charge in Monaghan. The House will appreciate that since that inquiry is still ongoing I am constrained to some extent in what I can say at this stage. Nevertheless, I will try to be as informative as possible and let the House know at least the background to the problem and what I have done so far to allay concerns.

Once the unions raised their concerns it fell to me, as Minister responsible to the House for the scheme of civil legal aid and advice, to ensure that the Monaghan appointment had accorded with necessary procedures. I think it is unarguable that the staff represented by the unions, persons who competed in the competition from which the appointment was made, the public and the House would demand that I should be in a position to establish the facts. I set about doing so by directing the Secretary of my Department to ask the chief executive of the board by letter, dated 21 December 1994, for the file dealing with the competition and appointments made from it. The board was also informed about my directive. The chief executive made the necessary arrangements for handing over the files on 22 December 1994 in his absence on leave and the absence on official duties of one of his senior assistants. A senior official of my Department took delivery of the files on that day with the co-operation of staff in the board's headquarters. In handing over the files it was necessary for the senior official to question staff on a voluntary basis about the papers given to him with a view to ensuring that the papers fully reflected the board's position. Staff were asked by the official not to disclose to anyone the content of the discussions they individually had with him. The press report indicates that staff were instructed by the official not to talk to anyone about his visit. That was plainly not the case since the visit was arranged between the secretary and the chief executive with the knowledge of the board. There was nothing secretive about the purpose of the visit and the need of the Minister to establish the facts surrounding the Monaghan appointment. The work started at 1 p.m. and finished at 8 p.m.

Following consultation with the Department of Finance, a former Secretary of the Department of Labour, Mr. Michael Keegan, is in the process of conducting an independent review of the case.

The board has total independence in giving legal aid or advice under the scheme. However, the scheme requires the board to give me such information as to the performance of its functions as I may from time to time request. I must also point out that while the board has power to engage staff, the numbers of staff, their grading, pay and conditions and method of appointment is subject to my approval, given with the consent of the Minister for Finance. Moreover, if any contract entered into by the board gives rise to a course of action as a result of which the payment of costs or damages falls to be made by the board or by an individual board member, it is open to me as Minister to direct that such costs or damages be paid out of the fund under which the board operates.

Exchequer funding to the board in 1994 was £4.97 million, an increase of 56 per cent over 1993 funding. Authorised staff numbers in 1994 doubled over 1993 numbers.

I do not consider that it can seriously be suggested that the Legal Aid Board is so independent in the exercise of all its functions that I could not question and find out what the board's position was regarding the Monaghan appointment.

As I said at the outset the investigation is still underway. When Mr. Keegan has completed his report I shall be glad to inform the House and all interested parties about the outcome.

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 25 Jan 1995