Brian Hayes (Dublin South West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 4: To ask the Minister for Education and Science the reason his Department chose to contest the legal costs in the case of a person (details supplied) that was recently concluded in the Supreme Court; and if he will make a statement setting out his views on the implications of this case for Irish education. [19476/09]

Batt O'Keeffe (Cork North West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

This case was handled by the State Claims Agency on behalf of the State. There had to be a court hearing in respect of costs as the plaintiff sought costs against the State.

It is normal for the State Claims Agency to seek costs where the State's case is upheld, which was the case in this instance. The State was not found liable by the High Court or the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court was told by counsel for the State that while an award of costs against the plaintiff was being sought, the matter of enforcement would be treated with the greatest sensitivity.

My Department cannot sustain a position whereby persons can take cases against the State on the basis that, win or lose, they will get their costs. Our desire is to find a fair balance between the need to protect the taxpayer against costs incurred defending cases where the courts have decided that the State has no liability and to treat individuals humanely at the same time. The decision of the Supreme Court was that no order for costs should be made, in effect, each party bearing their own costs. The judgment determined that the case was a test case and that there were exceptional reasons the normal rule of costs following the event should not be followed.

My Department has no involvement in the day-to-day management of national schools. Teachers are selected, appointed and employed by the school authorities, normally boards of management which are appointed by the patron. The judgment of the High Court which was upheld in the Supreme Court reflects the reality of the relationship between the Department, schools and teachers, essentially as set out in the Education Act 1998 and, therefore, has no implications for Irish education.

Brian Hayes (Dublin South West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Why was it necessary to pursue this woman for costs on the part of the State, whatever about her own costs? She is an exceptionally brave person who challenged a fundamental principle in Irish education. The case has historical and legal precedent. As the Minister stated, comments made by Mr. Justice Murray at the time referred to the particularly complex relationship between primary school teachers and the Department of Education and Science. Is the Minister telling the House that neither he nor his Department had any responsibility and that is was exclusively a matter for the State Claims Agency? I believe undue pressure was put on this woman who had previously been abused and gone through the courts. Given the judgment of the Supreme Court, I would have thought that we had a responsibility at least to pay costs on the part of the State. Is the Minister telling the House that it was not the decision of his Department but rather that of the State Claims Agency to pursue this woman for costs?

Batt O'Keeffe (Cork North West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The State Claims Agency pursues cases on behalf of the Government and the Department.

Ruairi Quinn (Dublin South East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It does so for all Departments.

Batt O'Keeffe (Cork North West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

This case was very different from many others and its sensitivity was not lost on me. The girl is from Cork and I was certainly very sensitive to the whole area. I indicated early on that I, as Minister, would not pursue her in terms of taking her house from under her feet but would deal with the matter in a fair and even-handed manner.

That said, is Deputy Hayes suggesting that, when a case is taken against the State, we should not defend it but simply pay out? That is an untenable position and it is not in the interests of the taxpayer. Further, on this particular case, Louise O'Keeffe took the case against the State for her costs. We won the judgment in the High Court and she appealed it to the Supreme Court on the basis of seeking costs. We and the State Claims Agency had no choice but to challenge that in the Supreme Court, which departed from the normal judgment. Usually, if the case is won, costs are assigned against the person who lost. The court said this was a test case, that the circumstances were most unusual, and that it would take the exceptional circumstances into account. We are quite satisfied as a Department-----

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I want to call Deputy Hayes for a supplementary.

Batt O'Keeffe (Cork North West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I want to say one other thing to Deputy Hayes, because it is relevant. Approximately 140 similar cases are being taken against the State. The State Claims Agency has advised the legal persons representing those individuals of the outcome of this case and indicated to them that they will have to consider the costs involved in pursuing cases similar to the one that has already been through the High Court and the Supreme Court. I am not sure the Supreme Court would give the same judgment if these cases were pursued to that extent.

Brian Hayes (Dublin South West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Each case is different and it is for the courts to decide on the liability based on the evidence that is heard.

Batt O'Keeffe (Cork North West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Absolutely.

Brian Hayes (Dublin South West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The reason the Supreme Court found in favour of Ms O'Keeffe in terms of the costs the State would have to bear is the special circumstances of the case. It is clear from what the Chief Justice said in the judgment that the complex relationship between teachers, the Department of Education and Science and the boards of management warranted the bringing of a case to the Supreme Court for a decision.

The Minister has had time to consider the decisions from the High Court and the Supreme Court. What lessons can his Department learn about that complex relationship? The Minister and his Department, in effect, pay the salary of every teacher in the country, but they are contracted to individual boards of management. Given that relationship and the importance of child safety and protection, do we need to legislate to make it abundantly clear, once and for all, where responsibility lies?

Batt O'Keeffe (Cork North West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Department of Education and Science gives out the responsibility to run schools and manage and hire teachers, and we pay their salaries. We do not micro manage the day-to-day running of schools. That is as it should be. We have to make a distinction. In one instance where the Department was made aware that there was a difficulty within a school, it accepted responsibility and came to an arrangement. In the O'Keeffe case, the Department was never made aware of the issue, and therefore the responsibility lay with the school and the board of management. Therefore, there was a significant difference-----

Ruairi Quinn (Dublin South East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Is the Minister saying the board never informed the Department?

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Priority questions are restricted to the Deputy who tabled them.

Batt O'Keeffe (Cork North West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We were made aware in one case and we came to an arrangement because we felt that, as the Department had been made aware but did not take decisive action, there was a responsibility. In this instance, the Department was not made aware of the case in terms of the day-to-day running of the school. In those circumstances, and in light of all the other cases that were going to emanate and were surfacing, the Department had no choice but to defend itself, and ultimately it was successful.