Vol. 448 No. 3
27 Mr. Sargent asked the Minister for Equality and Law Reform the current situation regarding his request to all political parties to indicate their positions regarding the issue of the dual mandate as outlined by the Second Commission on the Status of Women; the way in which he intends to pursue this reform; and the steps, if any, he and his Department have taken in order to pursue it to date in 1994 and 1995. [1344/95]
The current position in relation to the dual mandate is as outlined in the First Progress Report on the Implementation of the Recommendations of the Second Commission on the Status of Women which was published in June 1994. Political parties were asked, in advance of the publication of the progress report, for their views on the matter and their responses were taken into account in the compilation of the report. I understand that the Chief Whip also discussed the issue with all party Whips who felt this was not within their area of responsibility.
The second progress report is being prepared and the views of the political parties who did not respond previously have been sought again. I would urge those parties to let the secretariat of the monitoring committee have their views as soon as possible.
An amendment to the law to prohibit the holding of a dual mandate would be the responsibility of the Minister for the Environment.
Whatever about the Minister's copy of the report, mine is certainly gathering dust. Would the Minister agree that his credibility is being tested by lack of attention in progressing the issue of the dual mandate and the whole area of equality? I understood that the main objections by the last Government in terms of the dual mandate were from the Fianna Fáil party. Given that we have a new Government which does not include Fianna Fáil, will the Minister promise real progress in implementing the recommendations of the Second Commission on the Status of Women as they refer to this issue?
On the issue of the dual mandate we must, in the first instance at least, achieve consensus. According to my information, the Fianna Fáil Party, the Labour Party and the Green Party are the only parties that replied to the query. The Fine Gael Party and the Progressive Democrats have not replied. The response of the Fianna Fáil Party is that it accepts the practice of Deputies exercising a dual mandate in terms of posts on local authorities except where they are appointed Ministers or Minister of State. Members of Fianna Fáil who are selected as European Parliament members may stand for election to the Dáil or Seanad but, if successful, they must resign their seat in the European Parliament. The Labour Party position is that it considers undesirable the holding of seats simultaneously in the European Parliament and the Dáil. The Labour Party accepts the practice of Deputies exercising a dual mandate in terms of seats on local authorities. The Green Party supports the commission's recommendation in this regard. I urge the Fine Gael Party and the Progressive Democrats to let us have their replies so that the matter may be considered in an overall context.
I am fascinated and intrigued to hear the Minister say that consensus is required on this matter. Is it a new departure in the operation of Government that there be consensus on matters of policy? It certainly is unique in my experience in the Dáil for a measure to be held up for such a long time because we have not been able to reach consensus. Consultation has normally been the order of the day. Is this a new departure or is the Minister equating consultation with consensus? This has great implications — positive implications — for Government and it should not be held up.
I am surprised to hear the Deputy run down the desirability of the objective of consensus.
That is not the case.
Consensus is always a desirable objective and must be tried and investigated so far as is possible. This is an issue on which views vary. It is a position that has pertained in the country for a very long time. Replies have not yet been received from all the political parties, who, no doubt, are examining the issue. Obviously the broadest possible consensus must be sought initially. When the positions of all political parties are known I will bring the matter to Government for examination and determination on the action which may be appropriate, depending on the responses received. This is not an issue which is likely to be determined or adjudged on in the short term.
Question No. 28.
May I——
A brief question, Deputy. I want to accommodate other Deputies and we have made little progress today.
I appreciate that but this is my first question. Has the Minister set a deadline for the submission of the views of the parties which have not yet responded to these requests? Will he continue the process of consensus in other policy areas? I look forward to being consulted on other areas. Obviously the fact that some people do not want to respond should not be allowed to impede progress.
I have not set any deadline for political parties in so far as replying to this issue is concerned. I believe they will reply, and it is a matter for each political party to consider its policy position. I ask them to convey their policies in this regard to me as quickly as possible.
I will always seek to achieve consensus on all policy matters where possible, and that certainly includes Deputy Sargent. I consulted the Deputy on the divorce issue and I will be happy to continue this process in regard to other key issues. The more consensus we can achieve on this island the better. That has always been, and will continue to be, my aim in achieving policy objectives.
On a point of order, under what later question will the Minister deal with matters pertaining to the independence of the Legal Aid Board?
I am not sure of the question number but I certainly read the report in one of the files. The question may be grouped with other questions but if the Deputy has a particular question on this issue I do not mind dealing with it.
I did not get a clear reply from the Minister on whether the section of the report in the Sunday Independent to which I referred was correct. Did an official from the Minister's Department call to the offices of the Legal Aid Board, remove confidential files and tell the staff to keep quiet about his visit? If this is true, was that official acting with the sanction of the Minister?
I received representations from two trade unions which represent the staff employed by the Legal Aid Board, namely MSF and SIPTU, alleging that the appointment of the head of the Legal Aid Board's new office in Monaghan had not been made in accordance with the proper procedures. I felt I had to take the allegations by the two trade unions seriously and after consultation with the Department of Finance I appointed a former departmental secretary, Mr. Keegan, to conduct an inquiry into the allegations, to ascertain whether there was anything in them, whether the appointment had been made properly in accordance with the procedures and to report back to me on that issue.
To enable Mr. Keegan to conduct his inquiry in a proper manner I requested a principal officer in my Department to call, by prior arrangement with the chief executive of the Legal Aid Board, to the office and obtain the file in connection with the appointment. The expression "confidential files" is pejorative. The official was asked to obtain, and did so by prior arrangement, the file in connection with the appointment. This was required to enable the referee, Mr. Keegan, to conduct his inquiry.
There was no question of this being done without the knowledge of the chief executive — it was done with the prior arrangement of the chief executive. Admittedly, the chief executive was not there at the time but he knew that the official was coming for this file, which was duly sealed and handed over to Mr. Keegan to enable him to conduct his inquiry on the propriety or otherwise of the appointment to the Monaghan post. There was no question of the officials being told not to tell their senior officers about the matter — they knew about it as it was done with their prior knowledge — but they were requested not to talk to anybody about the inquiries which the principal officer had made about what had occurred in connection with the appointment.
I want to emphasise clearly that nothing I am saying here is to be taken as a suggestion that there was something wrong with the Monaghan appointment. I have no idea whether there was anything wrong with that appointment, and the purpose of the inquiry by the referee, Mr. Keegan, is to ascertain whether there was anything wrong with it. When I receive his report on this issue I will make it public and give it to the Deputy and the House in the ordinary way.
A final question, Deputy. I am anxious to make progress.
The Minister said that this visit was carried out by prior arrangement with the chief executive. Did the chief executive agree a specific day for the official to call? Is the Minister clearly telling me that the newspaper reports to the effect that the official who called instructed the staff to say nothing about his visit and not to give details to anybody about his visit is false? The Minister referred to the referee, the independent adjudicator appointed to ascertain the rights and wrongs of the case. Can the Minister say from where the referee is operating and whether he is receiving remuneration from any source for his services?
I understand that in accordance with normal procedures the referee gets remuneration for the inquiry. He is a former Secretary of the Department of Labour and is very well experienced in all matters relating to the appointments of staff and ensuring that they are carried out in a proper and fair manner. He operates from an office provided for him in my Department. According to the information given to me about the visit by the principal officer concerned, the allegations in the Sunday newspaper about the principal officer in my Department are totally incorrect and untrue. That is the information furnished to me.
