Ms Laverne McGuinness:

It is in correspondence set out by the acting area manager on 2 May in terms of what is to be complied with under the section 38 arrangements. It is following the correspondence that came from Ms Goulding. The requirement is set out that they would need to adhere to the following - a robust business case to be provided for the post and the continuation of the post; clear evidence that the restructuring, reorganisation and redeployment options have been exhausted, so nobody could just be assigned to a role; a ceiling compliance requirement and the whole-time equivalent impact; evidence of a link to staff suppressions etc.; evidence of proactive absenteeism management and also comparative data; and the appropriate approval sanctioned at senior management level. By and large, the section indicates that in order to recruit at a grade 8 level or above, approval must be received from the area manager in the first instance in order to proceed with the recruitment. That is set out in a section of the service level arrangement.

In a follow-up letter of 13 June to Mr Goulding, Ms Anne O'Connor, our area manager, wrote:

I am writing to you as I have been made aware that the board of the Central Remedial Clinic has now appointed a new CEO, Mr. Brian Conlon, to replace the outgoing CEO, Mr. Paul Kiely, with effect from 1 July 2013. I would note that I have neither seen nor approved any application to replace Mr. Kiely.

That is set out in the service level arrangement, which is managed at area level with the organisations. Ms O'Connor continues by setting out the stipulation for the provider: "The provider, if required, will comply with its obligations in respect of employment monitoring reports". That is the section of the Act and it is set out clearly in the correspondence of 13 June 2013.

On 26 June we wrote again about the issue, indicating there was a clear breach with regard to the service arrangements in place. It was indicated that the process for replacing any post above grade 8 level was clearly outlined in circulars and also in the service level arrangement, and it was advised that these were issued to the CRC in April 2007. It was also indicated that the process was outlined to the outgoing CEO at the integrated monthly meeting on 25 April 2013. As part of the management of our section 38 service level arrangements, a monthly meeting would take place with representatives of the agency. The letter continues "The non-adherence to this process is viewed by the HSE as a very serious matter." At that stage there is a formal notification that there was no approval to proceed and Mr. Kiely had agreed not to leave his post until a replacement was ready to commence, thereby enabling the CRC to continue the level of service provided heretofore. The letter essentially asked the CRC not to proceed with the process.

We acknowledge that we received a letter from the CRC on 27 June in which the organisation set out its search arrangements for the replacement of Mr. Kiely. It was indicated in the letter that the preferred option was to fill the post from within its existing resources and there were expressions of interest. In the letter it is stated the priority of "the board of governors has always been the provision of top quality service to our clients", and it was also indicated that the CRC had suppressed one additional post. It indicated that the recruitment process would proceed.

There is ongoing correspondence and on occasions we indicated that we were disappointed we had not received a request. There was much correspondence before we took the step of taking out the first performance notice. We were not getting the level of information required at any point.