Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Thursday, 9 Oct 2014

Vol. 234 No. 11

Adjournment Matters

Local Authority Staff

I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Coffey, to the House and thank him for taking these matters on the Adjournment. We have two matters on the Adjournment, but as Senator Daly is not in the House, I will ask Senator Ó Clochartaigh to speak first on his issue.

Cuirim céad fáilte roimh an Aire Stáit and thank him for coming in to take this matter on the Adjournment.

This is a sad story concerning a woman named Bríd Cummins, a former journalist who had mental health issues. She fought eviction by Galway City Council from the council house she was living in and was subsequently found dead in her flat the night officials turned up to get back the keys of the house from her.

This issue has also been highlighted by a former employee in the housing section of Galway City Council, in her recently published book, Abuse of Power: Because Councils Can, which also chronicles her own struggles with officials in City Hall. She was tenant liaison officer with the council in September 2003 when she was first asked to accompany a neighbour of Ms Cummins to the offices of the local authority solicitors to help take out an injunction against Ms Cummins. She refused, believing it morally unethical to provide the services of the council's legal team to a private citizen. She also refused to sign off on a statement made by a former neighbour of Ms Cummins which was to be used in evidence in the council's eviction case.

The lady in question, Ms Grace, believed the statement was an off-the-record solicited rant from an unreliable witness, made years after she had left the flat, who did not want it used in court. The statement was used to paint a picture of Ms Cummins' alleged anti-social behaviour. Six months after the first incident, Ms Grace was let go. She had been the council's first liaison officer, a role she had developed over seven years, and funding was obtained to expand and develop the role and three positions were created.

I have a number of questions on this issue. I raised the issue with the Leader previously and he suggested I raise the matter on the Adjournment. Does the Minister feel he has a role in investigating the issues that have been highlighted in the book regarding the power of CEOs and unelected people in local authorities? This is at the core of this issue. Although Bríd Cummins suffered a sad demise, some of the characters mentioned in the book and in the documents put together in it went on to bigger and better things. One of the people involved has gone on to become the manager and CEO of Sligo County Council. For that reason-----

That person could be identified from what the Senator has said here. The Senator should not identify people in the House.

He is identified publicly in the book. His name is a matter of public record.

He is not here to defend himself, so should not be referred to in the House.

It is important to raise this issue. A former Deputy, now President Michael D. Higgins, stated at the time that he felt there was a need for a full investigation into this case. It is about the way certain executives in city and county councils do their jobs. The CEO in question has given talks at certain public functions on the issue of key leadership attributes. A statement he made in that situation about politicians and the media was that they-----

The Senator must refrain from referring to somebody who is not in the House to defend himself.

It is a matter of record. This book has been published and it is in the public domain.

The person to whom the Senator has referred is not in the House. The Senator knows the rules of the House. Members are not allowed to speak about somebody who is not here to defend himself.

The question relates to the attitudes of CEOs of local authorities towards politicians and their view of how they do their work. They have serious disregard for the way things are done and in their role they have strong powers to make decisions. It is clear from the evidence outlined in documents presented to councillors at Galway City Council in regard to the Bríd Cummins case, for example, that certain officers had strong powers. Some were quite relentless in how they followed through on what they felt were their powers in the case.

The Senator should conclude now.

I am not sure if the Minister, the Minister of State or their officials have had the chance to go through the evidence presented in the book. If not, I suggest they do so. The evidence is factual and is based on minutes of meetings and correspondence and was acquired through FOI requests to the relevant authorities. Bríd Cummins deserves another hearing and her family wants to discover the truth about what happened. They want to ensure that officials in local authorities cannot overstep the mark or hound people out of houses and that we do not see another case like this happen again.

I am happy to respond to this Adjournment matter on behalf of the Minister, Deputy Alan Kelly, and to clarify some of the matters raised. This tragic case has been the subject of an inquest. I am certain it has been difficult for all concerned and intend to deal with the issue as sensitively as possible and avoid going into unnecessary detail.

This case concerns the repossession of a social housing dwelling and, as with any such matter, responsibility for action in this instance rested with the housing authority.

The repossession was undertaken on foot of a court decision. It would not, therefore, be appropriate for me to comment on the action taken by the housing authority in that regard.

In so far as general provisions and procedures relating to issues concerning the performance of functions by local authority officials may be relevant to the case in question, the position is that local authorities have put in place a multi-stage procedure for dealing with customer complaints, including those relating to the conduct of officials, the first of which is discussing the complaint at the point of service, as it is usually the quickest and most efficient way of addressing the matter. If a complainant is still unhappy with the outcome of the first stage, a formal complaint can be made to the authority's customer services officer.

If matters have not been resolved following engagement with the local authority, it is, of course, open to a complainant to bring the matter to the attention of the Office of the Ombudsman. Furthermore, Part 15 of the Local Government Act 2001 provides a legislative basis for the local government service's ethical framework. It places a statutory duty on "every member and every employee of a local authority and of every member of every committee to maintain proper standards of integrity, conduct and concern for the public interest". Codes of practice for employees and elected members are underpinned by Part 15 of the Act.

Each local authority has an ethics registrar and any breaches of the ethical framework should be reported to that person. Where an ethics registrar becomes aware of a possible contravention of Part 15 of the 2001 Act by an official, he or she is obliged to bring the matter to the attention of the chief executive, or to the cathaoirleach of the local authority in the case of a contravention by the chief executive. The chief executive or the cathaoirleach is obligated to take action, which may include investigative or disciplinary procedures, referral of the matter to the Director of Public Prosecutions, or any other course of action considered appropriate in the circumstances.

It is appropriate that any complaints regarding the provision of a service or the performance of a function which, it is claimed, is not in accordance with the rules, practice or policy of the organisation or the generally accepted principles of equity and good administrative practice, are first dealt with locally in accordance with an authority's customer complaints procedures, and that reports of non-compliance with the ethical framework are dealt with as provided for by Part 15 of the 2001 Act.

Responsibility for local authority staff and their conduct rests with the chief executive, who in turn is accountable to the elected members for the performance of executive functions to implement council policy. It is relevant to note in this regard that the governance and oversight role of the elected council has been strengthened in a number of respects by provisions in the Local Government Reform Act 2014.

In the context of the case in question, I have been informed that a detailed report on the matter was presented to the elected members of Galway City Council on 28 February 2005 and was the subject of a lengthy debate in regard to the handling of the case. I understand that the report informed members fully of the details of the case and specifically acknowledged that the actions of officials were open to review by the members of the council. The report was considered by the elected members. The record shows that although it was proposed that "an Independent Review of the case be carried out by someone from outside the Authority", this proposal was not adopted, but the council adopted a motion "that the City Council accept the recommendations set out in the City Manager's Report" by a margin of ten to four, with one abstention.

Regarding the question of a possible independent investigation in regard to the handling of the matter in question by Galway City Council, the main statutory provisions relating to the holding of local inquiries are contained in sections 83 to 86, inclusive, of the Local Government Act 1941. These provide for the undertaking of further inquires if it is considered to be warranted. However, in this case, taking particular account of the decision of the elected members of Galway City Council in regard to the report presented to them, the Minister, Deputy Kelly, is of the view that consideration of an independent investigation in accordance with the provisions of sections 83 to 86, inclusive, of the Local Government Act 1941 is not warranted.

I thank the Minister of State for the answer on behalf of the senior Minister, but I totally reject that answer. What we see here is the local authority investigating the local authority, when we have had many calls for other organisations in this State not to investigate themselves. I also have evidence that one of the individuals involved in this case has given a leadership talk about how to run local government, in which he stated that, when dealing with difficult cases:

- Identify the 'Loss' and structure your argument accordingly

- Keep close to your adversaries

- Focus on the message - not the messenger

- Manipulate the debate

- Have an anchor

- Be Relentless

That was definitely the tactic used in the Bríd Cummins case. I believe it is only fair and right that we have an independent investigation. We need people outside Galway City Council to again take a look at the facts of this case.

The Minister should have a role in this. He should be absolutely clear that something like the Bríd Cummins case can never happen again. Her family deserve closure in this situation. I implore the Minister of State to go back to the senior Minister and say: "Let us stand outside this organisation. Let us make sure that Galway City Council is above question and let us make sure that real justice was done in this case."

While I acknowledge the concern the Senator raises, and I know he raises it with good intention, I have to reiterate the view of the Minister, Deputy Kelly, that an independent investigation in accordance with the provisions of sections 83 to 86, inclusive, of the Local Government Act 1941 is not warranted in this case. As I said earlier, if matters at any level of complaint have not been resolved satisfactorily with a local authority, it is always open to a complainant to bring the matter to the attention of the Office of the Ombudsman.

The Seanad adjourned at 2.20 p.m until 1.15 p.m. on Tuesday, 14 October 2014.
Top
Share