Brian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)

——in the report, which I acknowledge. The note of caution indicated that a longer-term plan is needed in how the decentralisation programme will affect performance and meet the needs of the public. Such a plan would help to address the challenges decentralisation might present to further modernisation efforts. We are mindful of the impacts that decentralisation could have on delivery of services if it is not implemented with due care and attention and that is the point made by the OECD report. Of course if one does not go about it in the proper way, those worries and concerns arise, but we are going about it in a proper way because we have had the experience of less ambitious programmes in the past. This is the most ambitious programme thus far.

The decentralisation implementation group has always been aware of the business issues surrounding the relocation programme and, with that in mind, each organisation participating in the programme was asked to prepare detailed implementation plans, including risk mitigation plans. On a number of occasions the group met individual Secretaries General and was satisfied with the level of planning in each Department. To demonstrate the prudent approach, a number of Departments and offices moving their headquarters in full have put in place advanced parties to assist with the orderly hand-over of skills and knowledge and the retraining being carried out. This is happening and it is going well. I have opened offices for Revenue in a number of locations and for the Department of Finance, and these offices are working very well. I invite the Deputy, anytime he is in those parts of the country, to call in and talk to the staff and senior management. They are working well.

The question of decentralisation is not new to the public service. Previous programmes have built up considerable learning within the system. The turnover of staff can and is being managed in a way that minimises risk. That is a fairer assessment of what is happening.

The second point raised by Deputy Gilmore was about the programme. It was a very ambitious programme, as the Deputy said, and we still have those objectives. The reason one could not come to the conclusion which Deputy Gilmore is asking me to accept is that we have not had sufficient engagement on the issues. There has been a stand-off in some respects in areas of the programme, such as the State agencies sector, which makes up one fifth of the total programme. I would like that engagement to take place so that we can perhaps come to some conclusions in these matters. It is not fair to say to the Government that we should forget about decentralisation because there is non-engagement. The Labour Court recommendation relating to best industrial relations practice not only suggests but indicates, on the basis of the clarification it gave in respect of promotions etc., that there is engagement so that we deal with the issues, see what are the business case issues and see whether risks can be mitigated. This would be a far more intelligible and intelligent way of proceeding than simply having everyone stepping back all the time. In the meantime, were one to do that, one would, perhaps, undermine those areas of the programme that are proceeding. Some 1,000 people in the State agency sector have applied to the central applications facility for relocation. In the same way as other public servants in that sector who do not wish to move and whose wishes should be respected, there are 1,000 who have indicated their wish to the contrary. This should also be respected if it is possible to incorporate them in a systematic and sensible way to enable them to relocate. That is a fair statement.

If there are 1,000 people in the State agency sector who would like to be considered for relocation, it is not unreasonable to see in what way that might be accommodated and to see if others would also be interested. If they are not, we will just have to address that issue and see what is the outcome. The problem is that because of the IR background, which meant we could not proceed with this in the way we got on with the Civil Service unions, this issue has been left in abeyance somewhat. I do not think it is fair to those 1,000 people who have indicated they would like to move in the same way as it would not be fair to those in the State sector who do not want to move and would be compelled to do so. I am not interested in that sort of a programme and nor was Mr. McCreevy. Mr. McCreevy mentioned 2007 as an indication of the sincerity of purpose of the Government to get on with this programme but it was always a voluntary programme. One has to respect the IR process which is taking longer than would otherwise be the case. In regard to the question of the Government losing office over it, he was clearly wrong in that assessment because the people had a different opinion.

All I am saying is that if we could get co-operation at agency level and at all the relevant organisational unit level to discuss this matter intelligently and intelligibly, we could come to some more conclusions on it. That is all I am saying and I think we should do that.

See this speech in context