Paudie Coffey (Waterford, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

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 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 of the Local Government Act 1941 is not warranted.