Dáil debates

Tuesday, 23 May 2006

Priority Questions.

Decentralisation Programme.

3:00 pm

Photo of Joan BurtonJoan Burton (Dublin West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 65: To ask the Minister for Finance his views on whether an all-party review of decentralisation is required in the national interest to conform more closely with the recommendations of the national spatial strategy and take account of the census figures; his further views on the potential loss of expertise and corporate knowledge as a result of the Government's decentralisation programme; if he is planning to address these concerns by allowing Secretaries General to replace agencies earmarked for decentralisation with other agencies; his further views on whether this measure will gain sufficient applicants to meet decentralisation targets; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [19445/06]

Photo of Brian CowenBrian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I state the Government's full commitment to the decentralisation programme and reiterate that its policy on the relocation programme is unchanged. To date, more than 10,600 people have applied to the central applications facility and, despite consistent negative commentary, no political spokesperson has said that any town or county should be dropped from the programme. I take this opportunity to express my disappointment at the consistent criticism of the programme. This criticism is unfair to the thousands of public servants who have signed up for decentralisation and who are now making arrangements to establish their homes and families in new locations.

I also reject the suggestion implicit in the question that the decentralisation programme was not properly planned. Contrary to suggestions from some commentators this was not an announcement hastily cobbled together for political purposes to fill a gap in the Government's budget. This programme was first proposed as far back as 1999. It had its origins in the very positive experience that Government, staff and customers of the public service had of previous decentralisation programmes. Following that announcement at the end of 1999 the Government received a wide range of views, ranging from trade unions and individuals to groups representing the towns seeking the relocation of staff to their areas. In all, representations were received on behalf of over 130 towns across the country seeking the decentralisation of either sections or whole Departments to their areas. This response showed the groundswell of support for the idea from all corners of the country.

As well as these submissions, the Department of Finance faced a constant stream of parliamentary questions and representations from local representatives anxious for news of commencement of the programme. One thing of which the Government could not be accused was of rushing to announce the programme. A long period of deliberation took place before it made its announcement on 3 December 2003.

A wide range of factors were taken into account and balanced against each other in selecting the locations for the new decentralised offices. These included the need to achieve a fit with the national spatial strategy, the existence of transport links and the locations of existing decentralised offices. The aim was to establish viable clusters of work units within a region, either in the form of self-contained locations or clusters of sites located geographically close to each other or to existing decentralised offices.

In regard to the implications of decentralisation on delivery of service, the terms of reference for the decentralisation implementation group explicitly included the examination of how decentralisation might enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of the public service. To this end the group asked that all organisations participating in the programme should prepare detailed implementation plans including not just risk assessment but also mitigation strategies. A wide range of issues, including the potential loss of expertise and corporate knowledge, are addressed in these plans. The plans were prepared and submitted to the implementation group which subsequently reported that the overall quality of the plans was good. Since then those organisations listed as early movers have prepared further updated versions of their implementation plans.

The implementation group has met the Secretaries General of decentralising Departments and is satisfied that the implementation of the programme is being managed in a professional and carefully planned manner. The group is currently meeting the chief executives of a number of State agencies to discuss the planning framework in place, to assess progress to date and to hear about the challenges arising and steps proposed to address these challenges.

The Government is satisfied with progress to date on a number of fronts, including the level of applications to the central applications facility, property acquisition, assignments of staff etc., but I am conscious that a number of issues still have to be resolved.

As I have already said, more than 10,600 civil and public servants have made applications through the central applications facility to relocate. That facility continues to receive new applications every week. It is anticipated that interest will increase further as timetables firm up and buildings are completed. To date, 1,500 people have been assigned to posts destined for new locations and are being trained in their new roles in readiness to move. This 1,500 represents over 20% of the Civil Service part of the programme. Some 200 of these have already relocated and it is expected that up to 1,000 will have moved by the end of this year or early next year.

Discussions are ongoing with the unions in respect of the various human resource aspects of the programme. There are challenges in a programme of this size but I remain confident that these can be addressed with the active co-operation of all parties involved in the implementation effort.

Photo of Joan BurtonJoan Burton (Dublin West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Does the Minister share the Taoiseach's concern, expressed in recent interviews, that there is no appetite within the statutory agencies for decentralisation? Proof of that is that workers in FÁS are on picket duty today because they find it difficult to accept a policy of so-called voluntary decentralisation that is linked to their promotional prospects.

The Labour Party's proposal for an all-party review is an olive branch because decentralisation is important to the country. In July the census figures will be released and will tell us a great deal about population movements. The national spatial strategy and decentralisation should be reviewed in light of that information.

Why should I not regard this decentralisation programme as one more shambles and joke perpetrated by this Government? The Taoiseach has acknowledged this, as has the Minister of State at the Department of Finance with responsibility for decentralisation because he is switching bits of Departments around. It may be the last joke that Charlie McCreevy played on this House before he left. We know that his view of the State agencies would be that if FÁS is not willing to go to Birr, who needs FÁS?

What is the Minister's reaction to the Taoiseach's confession on the sofa with Sam Smyth that the Government got it wrong and there is no appetite for decentralisation? It is caught on the horns of a dilemma between guaranteeing that the programme is voluntary and insisting that people's career and promotional prospects are linked to it. The Labour Party's proposal is for an all-party review. Will the Minister indicate why he must hang tough on this when it risks destroying our public service?

All the risk analysis I have seen shows that, for instance, in certain Departments all or most of the senior expertise would be lost. We are facing a meltdown in the Civil Service, especially in the statutory bodies, if this 53-centre relocation goes ahead with no proper consultation or planning. The taxpayer must bear the cost and many public service bodies will be destroyed. Maybe that was the joke the former Minister for Finance, Mr. McCreevy, intended to play on us. Perhaps he is having the last laugh in Brussels.

Photo of Brian CowenBrian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Unfortunately, what is laughable is the Deputy's inability to listen to the details of the reply which confirms that the suggestion that this was hastily cobbled together is untrue. Every time I answer questions in this House I must contend with the same tired old rhetoric on this matter, particularly from this Deputy who talks out of both sides of her mouth about the muted support of the Labour Party for this process.

In response specifically to her supplementary questions, the Taoiseach did not say anything new. The decentralisation implementation group has always said that implementation of the programme should be on a phased basis. The group set out timeframes which recognised the differing business requirements of individual organisations, the central applications facility take-up for certain locations and the property solutions available. The implementation group proposed this revised timeframe and the Government agreed to it last year. The original timescales envisaged for the programme when first announced were very ambitious and required the full and active co-operation of all the parties involved. It was clear from an early stage that the issues which surfaced would take a considerable period to resolve. The setting of ambitious targets, however, was the best way to drive the programme forward and has enabled us to make significant progress.

In regard to Navan, I assume the Deputy is referring to the recent media coverage surrounding the relocation of the probation and welfare service. The original decision provided for the relocation of approximately 100 staff in the headquarters of the probation and welfare service to Navan. It was realised early on that approximately 80 of these staff are case officers working in the Dublin area and, to make up this shortfall, several other organisations will move to Navan in accordance with Government policy. These include the national property services regulatory authority, the new coroners agency and the new unit responsible for the management of human resources for Garda civilian staff. The original number of posts going to Navan remains unchanged.

Birr seems to be becoming a cause célèbre for certain Deputies but I would love to see them go there some time. Discussions were held on three occasions under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission to see if progress could be made in respect of Birr. The latest of these meetings concluded in the early hours of this morning. These continuing efforts by all the parties to use the offices of the Labour Relations Commission to find a solution is heartening. This is the only way it will be possible to arrive at a resolution which will allow meaningful talks to commence on the substantive issues around the implementation of the decentralisation programme. I strongly support using all the established and dialogue mechanisms.

In respect of the loss of corporate knowledge through the relocation of staff to the country, the Deputy should consider the story of the Revenue Commissioners in a previous decentralisation programme. The Revenue Commissioners told the Joint Committee on Finance and the Public Service last year that they set up decentralised offices with 900 staff in the mid-west in the early 1990s. At the time 10% to 12% of staff in the Collector-General's office opted to relocate. When staff who were employed in other Revenue posts are included, that figure increases to 25%. As a result, some 75% of decentralising staff were new to the Revenue organisation. The Revenue Commissioners regarded this as an opportunity to examine its internal efficiency and, consequently, significant improvements were made to processes, systems and work practices which were implemented in the course of the decentralisation. That experience by Revenue can be replicated in the current decentralisation process.