Vol. 450 No. 2
»
Debates
»
Find a debate
»
Dáil Éireann debate - Tuesday, 7 Mar 1995
»
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Monaghan...
33 Dr. Woods asked the Minister for Equality and Law Reform in view of the Keegan report on the appointment of a solicitor in charge in the Monaghan office of the Legal Aid Board, if he has satisfied himself that the appointment was properly made; if he will publish the report; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [4895/95]
The terms of reference of the Keegan report referred to by the Deputy were "to review all matters pertaining to the appointment of the Solicitor-in-Charge in Monaghan Law Centre in order to establish whether the appointment was carried out in accordance with public service standards."
The background to the review was set out by me in the House in the course of debate on the Adjournment on 25 January 1995 and I also dealt with the matter in the course of supplementary questions on 31 January 1995. I undertook on both occasions to give information about the outcome of the review. I honoured that commitment, immediately after consultations with the Legal Aid Board, by arranging to have a copy of the report placed in the Oireachtas Library on 28 February, 1995.
I am delighted to be able to inform the House that the Keegan report dated 6 February 1995, has found the appointment in question to be based entirely on merit. Another main finding in the report is that while Mr. Keegan was satisfied that, in all essentials, the actual recruitment process of preliminary interview and final interview for solicitor-in-charge posts, as a result of which the Monaghan post was filled, was carried out in accordance with normal public service standards, the filing and surrounding paperwork was haphazard and unsatisfactory. He reports it would be an understatement to say that the filing and paperwork lacked transparency. There was, he states, no coherent competition file and that it should have been a straightforward operation to establish the process which led to the Monaghan appointment. That was not the case and, if it was, he says, no great problem would have arisen in the first place when my Department sought basic information about the appointment.
A series of recommendations have been made by him regarding the way in which the recruitment process could be improved by the board and how relations, which he detected as being poor between management, the law centre solicitors and the unions representing them, could be improved.
While I welcome the finding that the Monaghan appointment was in order, I am concerned at the criticism levelled at the personnel management system operated by the board and the extent to which the recruitment process which they have operated to fill senior solicitor posts does not appear to have the confidence of solicitor staff and the unions. These are matters which must now be addressed by the board and its management staff. Guidelines have been established in the report on how to go about matters in the future to improve the situation. I have asked the board to arrange for early implementation of the recommendations in the report and I look forward, as I am sure the House will, to progress in the matter. The board has informed me that it has no difficulties in principle with the various conclusions and recommendations contrained in the report.
There are two further matters which I should like to mention. First, I wish to say in respect of the person who was appointed to the Monaghan post that I can understand, and I regret, any distress or inconvenience which recent events, including media coverage, may have caused to that person. The media coverage, to which I referred in earlier debates in the House, was of a kind which distorted the facts. Those who sought the publicity clearly had no regard for the effect it might have on the appointee. The aim, it appears, was to get across a version of events to question the need for a review, to question my authority to order the review and to question even the standing of the person carrying out the review. The appointee should not, in any event have been expected to carry the burden of the publicity involved and I hope that those responsible now accept and realise the damage that was done by their actions.
Second, I want to place on the record of the House my appreciation of Mr. Keegan for a job thoroughly well done. I have no doubt that the board and its management staff and the unions will benefit from the very clear-sighted views and recommendations he has set out in his report.
Copies of the report have been furnished to the unions representing the law centre solicitors. It was, of course, their concern about the Monaghan appointment which initially led me to make inquiries about the appointment and to eventually decide on an independent review of the case by Mr. Keegan. A copy has also been furnished to the solicitor-in-charge in Monaghan and, as indicated earlier, a copy has been placed in the Oireachtas Library.
Will the Minister agree that if he and his Department had taken the trouble to establish the facts when the complaint was made none of this need have happened? The report vindicates the person appointed and the procedures used in the appointment and it raises a side issue, that of the filing and paperwork. It also explains how that filing and paperwork was complex. A posts and B posts were considered at the same time and this is what led to the complications. Also, the Minister had requested the board to appoint a substantial number of people in a relatively short time and at the same time build up a great deal of extra activity. Why did it all happen in the first instance?
Why did what happen?
Why did this incident occur? A query from a trade union usually comes through the board or the Department in question who will then respond. In this case two faxes were sent on 20 December 1994 from two separate unions to the principal officer in the Minister's Department. At the same time letters were sent to the Legal Aid Board by post on the eve of Christmas. The first letter, however it happened, arrived on 23 December; the second letter did not arrive until after 29 December. There seems to be somethings suspicious about the way in which this part of the inquiry was conducted. Will the Minister indicate whether there was any communication between the unions and his Department, or any official in his Department, or if they were invited to communicate with the Department? Clearly they communicated with the Department before putting the query to the board. Even natural justice would require that the query or the complaint be put to a person and that the person be given an opportunity to reply and to take it from there.
The question is over long.
Who advised the Minister to act so precipitously and why?
There was no prior communication on the matter of the Monaghan appointment between my Department and the unions. The first information we in the Department had on the issue was when the two communications were received from the two unions concerned. The communications from the unions were not, as Deputy Woods suggests, queries; they were not seeking information. They were correspondence items sent to us by fax alleging that the appointment of the Monaghan solicitor was not made in accordance with the proper procedures. Having considered that matter very quickly with my officials, we rapidly came to the conclusion that there were allegations from the two unions representing solicitors' staff in all the law centres and that they could not be ignored. The allegations had to be taken seriously and the proper way to deal with them was to appoint an independent person to investigate whether they were properly based.
My Department had no information as to the nature of the appointment or the circumstances surrounding it. That required the securing of the papers in connection with it. Mr. Keegan was duly appointed as a suitably qualified person to carry out the investigation. The papers in connection with the appointment were secured for him. He examined them and I am happy to report he found the procedures in order and that the solicitor in question was properly appointed. He went on to say that he found relations were poor between the management of the Legal Aid Board and the solicitors in the various law centres throught the country and with their unions. He also found that their paperwork, which is important for record purposes and the purposes of transparency, to put it mildly, left much to be desired. Since then I have communicated with the board and they have agreed to examine all those matters and to tighten up those procedures.
Deputy Woods is right in one matter. During the past couple of years I asked the Legal Aid Board to take on a substantial number of solicitors, support staff, clerks, clerical assistants and solicitor's apprentices and to rent new premises for the new centres which have been set up. As the House is aware there has been a major expansion of the entire legal aid service; the number working in the law centres has doubled since I took office. I accept that that placed a great burden on the Legal Aid Board, to whom I pay tribute for carrying out their functions in an extremely competent and efficient manner. I hope the issue has been clarified and that the important and necessary paperwork in connection with these appointments will be tightened up. I hope the Legal Aid Board, and its centres, will continue from here on to work in an ever better manner.
Is it true, as we read in our newspapers over the weekend, that the solicitor in the Monaghan office has offered her resignation? If so, will the Minister ask her to reconsider her position? Does he accept that a gross injustice has been done to her in these circumstances and that she has, in effect, been badly treated? Consequently, will he try to make amends to the person in question?
I have expressed regret that such distress and inconvenience was caused to that person. As I said earlier the distress, which was totally unnecessary, was caused by those people who brought the matter to the attention of the media and highlighted it. I do not know who they were. I am pleased that that person's position has been totally vindicated by the findings of the Keegan investigation. My Department has not yet received formal notification of her resignation although I understand a letter to that effect has been sent to the Legal Aid Board. I have no problem about approaching her to ask her to reconsider her position. No person would be more pleased than I if she decided to do that. I understand, however, that she has received an offer and is taking up employment in the legal department of one of the Departments of State. She may well be committed in that regard.
The action taken in my Department was prompt as it had to be, following on the allegations made by the two trade unions involved. It was in the interest of the solicitor concerned that an independent inquiry was conducted which thoroughly vindicated her position. An inquiry was required to vindicate her position and it could not have been done in any other way.
I do not know if the Minister realises that he may be writing history on this issue. My recollection is that this matter came to public notice because of the rather heavy-handed way in which this whole affair was dealt with initially by the Minister in that files were seized from the office — whether or not they were pertinent is a different issue. Subsequently the House was informed that a separate inquiry was to be set up. The Minister diverted attention from the difficulties on the seizure of files by informing the House of a separate inquiry. Will the Minister agree that it is disingenuous to blame the media for causing this young woman's distress when it was initially caused by his Department?
I most certainly do not accept that assertion. With respect, if anybody is rewriting history it is Deputy Keogh. There was no heavy-handed action by my Department in connection with this matter. My Department received allegations from two trade unions representing the staff of the law centres which called into question the propriety of an appointment in Monaghan and I immediately arranged for an independent inquiry into them. I do not see anything high-handed in that action.
Deputy Keogh should be careful about the emotive language she uses. For example, she said that files were seized in the office of the Legal Aid Board. That is the kind of emotive language used in some of the press reports which led to the distress of the solicitor in the Monaghan law centre. What happened was quite different. Having set up an inquiry into this matter, an official from my Department went to the Legal Aid Board and was given the files, by arrangement with the Chief Executive Office. References to the seizure of documents gave rise to paranoia in the press about the investigation, which was carried out in an entirely proper manner. This is evident from the fact that it totally vindicated and exonerated the way in which the appointment was made. That is precisely what happened and my good friend, Deputy Keogh, should have the good grace to accept that.
I call Deputy Kenneally. I must bring this question to finality and move on to other Deputies' questions.
The Minister said that this case arose because basic information which was sought from the office in Monaghan was not forthcoming and that the report found that the problem related to filing and paper work which was done in a haphazard manner. Despite the increase in the number of staff in Legal Aid Board offices, this problem could arise in any office. The Minister said that there were problems with the Civil Legal Aid Board and the management of the various offices. Why was the person in Monaghan singled out? We are not being told why it was decided to single out this person who has been vindicated in the report.
Deputy Kenneally completely misunderstands the position. Allegations were submitted to my Department by the two trade unions who represent the solicitors and staff that there was an impropriety in the manner in which this person was appointed as the solicitor to head the Monaghan law office; in other words, that the normal transparent and open Civil Service appointment and promotion procedures had not been adhered to in this case. I had to check these allegations. I could have decided to ignore them and tell the unions I was not interested, that even though they represent all the people who work in the board they know nothing about it. If I had done that the Deputies would be on much firmer ground in questioning my action. I could not treat lightly allegations of that nature. I did not know whether they were ill founded or well founded and the only way I could ascertain the truth in the fair and objective manner was to send in an independent referee who had experience in these matters. This was duly done by arrangement with the Legal Aid Board and the papers in connection with the appointment were secured and examined. While, happily the appointment was found not to be in breach of Civil Service regulations, the report went on to say that relations between the board, the unions and the solicitors who work there were not good and it made certain suggestions on how these could be improved. It also indicated that the paper work on these procedures which are normal in all Departments were not being kept in a proper manner and it made suggestions on how these could be tightened up. Those recommendations have been brought to the attention of the board which has agreed to examine them.
Deputies Keogh and Woods rose.
I must bring this question to finality. I call Deputy Woods, who tabled this question, for a final brief supplementary.
In the context of personnel management, this would be a normal inquiry about appointments. The letter from the MSF stated:
My understanding is that this person was appointed without the job being advertised and was recruited as a Grade A solicitor and immediately thereafter appointed to the post of Solicitor-in-Charge, Grade B. If this is the case, then it files in the face of all normal procedure and assurances given to us in the past.
This was not the case and a simple inquiry would have immediately established both the position and the complexity of the matter. While Mr. Keegan has belatedly done an excellent job, there was no need to get to that point. The Minister said that the people in his office advised him what to do. They gave him bad advice——
That is the Deputy's view.
They should have advised him to first ask the Legal Aid Board——
Questions, please.
——for the details of the appointment, thus enabling the matter to be dealt with without any blundering. I understand the board will be reappointed in April and that the chief executive is due to retire sometime during the summer. This gives rise to questions about the type of denigration in which the Minister has been involved. He referred to the filing and the lack of transparency——
I was quoting from the Keegan report.
I accept that but it raises questions about whether there is power play in the appointments procedure. Neither Deputy Keogh nor I know whether there was something wrong from the very beginning and the Minister should find out the facts.
I do not know of any power play in the appointments procedure. Deputy Woods knows more about power play than I do. I have given the facts to the House. This first class inquiry gave the details of the case. The report is transparent and open and anyone interested in this matter can read its findings. I very much regret that the Monaghan solicitor has resigned from her position. I will communicate with her and ask her to reconsider her decision. There is no reason for her to resign unless she wishes to do so. I am pleased that she has been vindicated. I do not know the motivation behind the letters sent to me by the trade unions concerned, SIPTU and MFS, but when the allegations were made I had an obligation to check them. The Legal Aid Board is funded by taxpayers' money and I am answerable in the House for the operation of the board. I have a responsibility to the House and its Members to ensure that that expenditure of public money is carried out in accordance with recognised, proper and fair procedures and I discharge that responsibility in a proper and normal manner. My decision to appoint Mr. Keegan to make the necessary inquiries was the correct one and I accept full responsibility for it.
Why did the Minister not ask the Legal Aid Board himself?
