Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
Updated 5.40pm
FOR 80 DAYS Frances Fitzgerald refused to back her top civil servant Brian Purcell as secretary general of the Department of Justice, but now he’s offered to be reassigned.
It comes after a damning report by an independent review group found a “closed, secretive and silo driven culture” operating within the department and recommended wide scale reforms to its administration.
Speaking to reporters this evening, Fitzgerald said Purcell had “decided that it was in the best interests of the department” that he offer to be reassigned in the wake of his reading the report. She said he felt it would be a “distraction” if he remained.
“In fact he said to me that it was in the best interests of the department, of my role as minister and personally himself to take this decision. I think it was an honourable decision,” she said.
Fitzgerald said this evening that it was important to note that the report “does not name any individuals” and that Purcell has “served the State for 28 years to date” noting he was shot at when he worked at the Department of Social Protection in the 1980s.
She said “there’s no secret deal” with Purcell and he will not be reassigned within the department.
The Minister said she believes his successor will be appointed after an open competition process which will take around two to three months although she admitted there will be difficulties with it being August.
Purcell was previously criticised in the Guerin Report over his handling of garda matters including the situation surrounding garda whistleblower Maurice McCabe.
In the wake that report the then newly-appointed justice minister refused to officially show or deny her support for – or confidence in – Purcell remaining as her Secretary General.
On May 9, Fitzgerald would not explicitly state whether or not she had confidence in her top civil servant, despite being asked three times.
The following week, the minister was asked again about her confidence in Purcell and replied that she would base her decision on whether he should remain in his post on “sound advice, expert advice” following the independent review of the department’s management and administration.
Fitzgerald said there were “questions obviously of natural justice which clearly would form part of any response that I make” in relation to Purcell’s future at the department.
In a statement today responding to the report’s publication and noting Purcell’s offer to be reassigned to other duties in the public service, Fitzgerald thanked Purcell for his years of service and noted the Cabinet’s decision to proceed with the open recruitment of his replacement.
She said the “newly appointed Secretary General will play a pivotal role in managing and embedding the recommendations of the report in the workings of the Department”.
On the independent review group’s report in general, Fitzgerald said she had confidence in the current staff in her department to implement its recommendations, noting this was the view of the review group.
“It’s a critical report but it’s a constructive report, it maps a way forward for the department,” Fitzgerald said of the 21-page document that she described as a “really valuable tool”.
She also rejected suggestions she had delayed publishing the report though acknowledging she has had it for two weeks and that the Taoiseach and Tánaiste were given the report last Tuesday.
The Fine Gael TD said there may well be decisions and changes to staff on foot of the report but stressed the review group had shown confidence in the staff at her department to carry out the reforms.
She had had discussions with Public Expenditure Minister Brendan Howlin about providing additional resources to the department to implement the recommendations of the report.
Fitzgerald also suggested that similar reviews should be carried out in other government departments, saying: “Some of the issues identified in this would be common across a number of areas.”
“This is a valuable tool to understand how the department is functioning and the challenges that it faces and what we need to do going forward is to make sure that it’s fit for purpose,” she later added.
- additional reporting from Susan Ryan
First published 5.11pm
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
‘Nation is a thorn in Company’s side’. That is a scary headline when you think of it.
When will Facebook get their own Private Military Force I wonder?
I’d imagine they’ve intelligence gathering capabilities to put most governments to shame.
And we happily give it that information out.
Imagine if “the government” told us it was now the law that we had to give all that personal data, and carry it around on a tracking device.
We would have all the lefties AND righties screaming blue murder.
Bill you can leave Facebook any time you’d like and that’s the end of their ability to track you, I’m not sure Government enforced tracking is even remotely similar.
Not true, you don’t have to use Facebook to be tracked by it.
All the bleaters who give out about the state and big brother watching you…all overlooking Facebook, Google Apple etcetc
Are you ok Huns?
Pm’d you there hun xoxoxo
Like if you cried
Wasn’t Merkel snuggling up to Facebook in an attempt to control what Germans were saying about her folly In inviting the Middle East , North Africa and Asia to come live in Europe , I wonder did they do what they were told ?
At the same time German exports are on a massive high, unlike us, the French and the rest of EU. Go figure.
It’s possible to be over reliant on exports though. Leaves you very exposed if the world economy takes a dump. It’s a very fine balance.
Facebook is a free service from the user perspective that allows you to do a great deal. If it didn’t exist you’d have to invent it. If you want to use a free service then you have to expect a quid pro quo. What is required is that companies such as Facebook are clear about the quid pro who.
There is a huge capacity to tweak your privacy settings on Facebook if you can be bothered to do so. The problem is that many users are not bothered.
The Germans have never been happy with companies like Facebook and Google who use their users’ data to provide what is essentially a commercial service. Apple do not use their user’s data to provide their services. They don’t need to. Their commercial model is different. Horses for courses.
The competition angle is highly contrived. What the Germans resent is that under EU law they are not in exclusive control of Facebook’s activities on their territory. They bitterly resent the notion that a little country like Ireland has such control because the EU HQ of Facebook is here. Strangely enough they have no problem with other aspects of EU law which have opened up internal EU markets to their industries. Like most large States the Germans are hypocrites.
It is easy to criticise Facebook but they have come a long way as has Google in terms of transparency of data use. Continued oversight is needed. But people have to take the time to protect their privacy on-line. Many do not.
Here’s the thing. Don’t like like how Facebook operates… Dont use it. Simple Don’t use a free service voluntarily and then complain about it
“…und das ist all you’ll ever be..”
Facebook’s problem is has to take a side in this freedom of speech debate, look at Twitter who have done the same thing. Twitters user based has dropped along with its share price since it started attacking freedom of speech of some of its users. Any social network platform that takes the wrong side will find to its cost it was an awful business decision.
Agree John.
Germans have bad experience of being spied on the East German Stassi for instance
http://www.mtv.com/news/2723688/germany-twitter-facebook-google-deal-hate-speech-refugees-migrants-muslims/
http://www.wsj.com/articles/facebook-faces-antitrust-investigation-in-germany-1456920796
there is huge pressure put on the likes of FB, Google etc by outside international political bodies like the UN Migration dept, EU commision etc. to censor all anti migrant speech and collect data on every one. From the stazi era i germany the average middle aged german is rightly concerned by the incremental erosion of their privacy and the censorship of things disliked by those at the top.
What is happening there now is a semi grassroots reaction to this led by worried german civil servants and concerned politicians. Merkel is all on board with the soviet era top down east german control.
have your say