Enda Kenny (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 1: To ask the Taoiseach the number of staff in his Department who have applied for re-location under the Government's decentralisation programme; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [3561/08]

Eamon Gilmore (Dún Laoghaire, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 2: To ask the Taoiseach the number of civil servants in his Department who have applied for relocation under the Government's decentralisation programme; the grades in each case; the number of such applicants who have been transferred; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [6174/08]

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 3: To ask the Taoiseach the number of persons in his Department re-located under the decentralisation programme to date; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [15225/08]

Richard Bruton (Dublin North Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 121: To ask the Taoiseach the costs incurred to date for decentralisation, broken down by his Department and the agencies under the aegis of his Department. [18108/08]

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

I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 to 3, inclusive, and 121 together.

A total of 32 staff currently serving out of the authorised core staffing complement of 193 in my Department have applied through the central applications facility to relocate under the decentralisation programme. The breakdown by grade is one principal officer, five assistant principals, three higher executive officers, seven administrative officers, six executive officers, one staff officer and nine clerical officers.

A total of 16 former members of staff have already been assigned to decentralised posts. It is a matter for those Departments to which staff from my Department have decentralised to assign such staff to locations outside of Dublin. The Deputy will be aware that there are no proposals to decentralise my Department or any of the bodies under its aegis and, accordingly, the information sought regarding cost of decentralisation does not apply.

Enda Kenny (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thought after last weekend the Department might be decentralised to the midlands but this does not seem to be the case. With regard to the 32 members of staff who have applied for transfer to other Departments, what is the position with regard to those Departments being decentralised? I assume it may well be based on general, geographical, home or family circumstances and where staff may prefer to work. Will the 32 individuals in question be replaced when they are transferred or decentralised?

The Taoiseach's predecessor invited the OECD to do an analysis and report on the decentralisation programme in general. In very polite language the OECD report clearly indicated the programme is in a complete shambles. The Taoiseach can see, as I and others also can, the benefits of a planned and well managed decentralisation programme in a town in his constituency. It is perfectly obvious, however, that there is a complete blockage in the programme through which 10,000 public servants were to be decentralised to 53 locations inside three years.

One of the key tenets of the OECD report is that 90% of persons working in Departments or agencies could be affected by decentralisation, the central point being that there will be a complete fragmentation of the collective memory of the public service in the Departments in question. Does the Taoiseach share the view that if one could, in theory, implement the entire decentralisation programme in the morning, which will obviously not happen, the collective capacity and memory of the public service being dissipated over such a large area into such small fragmented pieces would not provide the capacity for public service reform and delivery, of which the Taoiseach has rightly spoken in the recent past? What is the story regarding the OECD report commissioned by the Taoiseach's predecessor which has more or less said the decentralisation programme envisaged by the Government has not worked to date and, given the figures it cites, is unlikely to work?

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

The OECD has not said that. The Deputy did not give a fair reading of the situation. The OECD was not asked to comment on any Government policy, including decentralisation. The report makes the point that the ambitious and voluntary decentralisation programme is challenging and the Government accepts that is the case. There has been significant progress in the programme. To date, approximately 2,200 posts have been relocated and decentralising organisations have established a presence in 34 locations. More than 11,000 civil and public servants have applied on the Central Applications Facility to decentralise, of whom more than 6,000 or 55% are based in Dublin. The facility remains open and continues to receive applications. Some 2,200 posts have been moved and a further 1,200 Civil Service staff have been assigned to decentralising posts and are being trained in their new role in advance of their move. Taking account of both the moves and assignments, almost 50% of the Civil Service general service posts have moved or have staff in place with a commitment to move. The comparable figure for the Civil Service professional and technical staff is 25% and the indications are that it is in the order of 20% for the State agency sector.

Decentralisation is a voluntary programme. Difficulties have arisen in the State agency sector because it does not share a culture established in the Civil Service in which cross-pollination of staff among Departments is regarded as acceptable. We have been asked on foot of the Labour Court recommendations in the FÁS case to engage with the Irish Congress of Trade Unions on these matters. ICTU indicated recently that the OECD report presents an opportunity to step back from the process, which is unfortunate. The OECD does not state what the Deputy asserted but states the decentralisation programme is challenging. It is not, as has been portrayed, a critique of the programme. It is no such thing.

Enda Kenny (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The OECD would not be so direct. However, it made points about better accountability mechanisms, appropriate information systems, revised procedures and mechanisms regarding staff mobility and effective methods and systems to evaluate and measure performance. This is appropriate terminology for saying——

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

It is not specific to the decentralisation programme but general.

Enda Kenny (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

——there needs to be increased accountability and performance. It says these needs will impose additional specific pressures on the Irish public service. In light of the figure of 25% relating to technical staff mentioned by the Taoiseach, does he feel it is time to review what is left of the decentralisation programme? I support a well-planned and well-managed decentralisation programme and can see the benefits of it in locations around the country. However, the FÁS ICT unit has three people in Birr and six in Dublin. These people must meet centrally to discuss their business because they have no broadband. That seems to be a shambles.

People from the Department of Arts, Sport and Tourism, which is the subject of questions later, must travel extensively from Killarney to Dublin because most of the bodies with which they deal are in the capital. This obviously involves travel; the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government's carbon footprint emissions; travel expenses; and overnight stays in many cases. We heard the Taoiseach's predecessor talk about multi-corporate companies operating on a worldwide basis with technology like videolinking and all modern means of communications. Here we have a situation where people are travelling from Killarney by train or car to meet the bodies, most of which are based in Dublin, for discussions. It does not seem to be the way to do business.

As I said previously in respect of the ICT unit in FÁS, three people in Birr and six people in Dublin must meet centrally because they have no broadband. That appears to be a complete shambles. A total of 300 posts in Enterprise Ireland were to move to Shannon. A recent survey shows that only seven internal applicants are interested in moving there, no disrespect to Shannon. In respect of the move of the Health and Safety Authority to Thomastown in County Kilkenny, which involves 110 posts, only 12 people have expressed an interest. The National Standards Authority is to relocate to Arklow, with a total of 132 posts. A total of ten Dublin-based staff have said that they want to go there. The Combat Poverty Agency is supposed to go to Monaghan town but no staff have yet moved and there is no indicative time as to when this will happen. Bord Bia is to relocate to Enniscorthy but no staff have moved, no accommodation has been found and there is no indicative timeframe.

As the Taoiseach is aware, this is a voluntary scheme. Obviously, there are difficulties such as families, homes, schools and relationships. Does he think there is a need for a complete re-evaluation of that element of the decentralisation programme in so far as State agencies are concerned? This area is clearly proving to be much more difficult than the general public service.

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

In respect of the State agency side of the equation, State agency moves in total account for 20% of the total programme. So one fifth of the programme is in the State agency sector. There have been specific industrial relations difficulties in respect of the State agency sector as a result of the case brought by FÁS and the unions in respect of a FÁS directive, which was decided upon by the Labour Court. The union representatives decided not to engage until clarification was brought as a result of the FÁS case. That has been clarified by the Labour Court, which indicated in its recommendation that it is a voluntary programme and that the agencies should engage for the purposes of scoping the extent to which a process can be undertaken which will enable those who wish to move to do so if that is possible.

At the end of the day, it is the actual non-engagement because of the industrial relations issue in the background that is depriving us of coming to an assessment more quickly than would otherwise be the case regarding that matter. I want to put it in perspective. It is 20% of the programme. It is a significant part of the programme but it is not all of it. The FÁS situation in Birr is far better than Deputy Kenny suggests. I invite him to call there some time when he will discover there are far more than three people working in FÁS here. The suggestion was made that there were three people working in FÁS in Birr.

Enda Kenny (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

In the ICT sector.

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

The suggestion that the ICT area is in abeyance in FÁS is wrong. FÁS has come up with other solutions to deal with that problem, knowing there was an industrial relations issue regarding the relocation to Birr. The responsibility is with management and COs working with the unions when they can and the terms of engagement can be agreed to move these things along. It is moving more slowly than we would like but it was always a voluntary programme. The best way of seeking to resolve and conclude these matters is to have engagement so we can scope the issues.

The fact is that because of the industrial relations problems, people are stepping back from engagement, which is unfortunate. At my last meeting with a SIPTU delegation, including Mr. O'Connor and others, we discussed this matter as candidly as possible in an attempt to find a way forward. The State agency sector is not moving as quickly as we would like. That is quite clear. There are industrial relations issues and other difficulties. It is a complex problem. The Civil Service sector has been moving along quite well. A total of 3,400 people have relocated or are assigned to relocate, which is a significant rate of progress. We would like to see more and, indeed, more are on the way.

Enda Kenny (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

On a point of clarification, what I said was that in the ICT section of FÁS, there are three people in Birr and six in Dublin. I recognise that there are more people working in FÁS in Birr in general.

Arising from the clarification of the case in respect of FÁS, does the Taoiseach envisage a situation where negotiations or sit-down talks can take place? Does he have a timescale in mind, when something might happen to bring this to a conclusion or will it be drifting continuously with speculation on dates, site purchases or building acquisitions continuing to fill local newspapers all over the country? Will the Taoiseach review the situation or let it drift, in which case we will probably be asking him questions about this again in the future?

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

It is not a question of drift. There is a proposal to decentralise and in the meantime, people get on with their work in their current location. In fairness to those staff, for the purposes of trying to bring some clarification to what the organisational arrangements will be, it would be best if there was an engagement between staff and management so that they can scope the issue and try to come to some conclusions. The problem is that there has not been a great degree of engagement because of the industrial relations background. Now the OECD report is being used as a means to justify stepping back again but I do not see the benefit of that and I know the staff would like to have the issue clarified, one way or the other. That would be better for everyone, including management and policy makers. I am quite open about that.

I would contend that the Labour Court recommendation on the dispute between FÁS and SIPTU provides a renewed opportunity for both unions and management to address the relevant issues. There are issues to be addressed and I frankly acknowledge that. My Department has been in contact with the Irish Congress of Trade Unions to establish how progress can be made on this aspect of the recommendation. I remain confident that through dialogue and negotiation, progress can be achieved. Issues also arise regarding the decentralisation of Civil Service posts which are debated and talked through, solutions are found and the situation is moved on. The problem on the State agency side, unfortunately, is that we are not getting that level of engagement, for reasons which were understandable from an industrial relations point of view. Those issues have now been clarified. I suggest people get down to discussing the problem rather than simply saying there is a problem and not being able to bring it any further. Let us discuss the problem and determine to what extent we can address the issues and bring greater clarification to those employees who want to see the issue resolved.

Eamon Gilmore (Dún Laoghaire, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Taoiseach said that the OECD was not asked for an opinion on decentralisation, which makes the opinion it did express all the more remarkable. That opinion is pretty categoric. The OECD argued that decentralisation would contribute to fragmentation of the public service. It said it would pose significant challenges to modernisation and the ability to achieve an integrated, cohesive public service. The organisation was quite damning in its criticism of the decentralisation plan.

Is it still the Government's intention to proceed with the plan as announced originally by the former Minister for Finance, Mr. McCreevy, in 2003? The original plan was that 10,000 civil servants would be decentralised to various locations around the country. If it is the Government's intention to proceed with that plan, will the Taoiseach indicate the timescale for it now? When it was announced, Mr. McCreevy said it would be completed by the end of 2006. In fact, he said the Government would not deserve to be re-elected if that deadline was not met. Clearly it has not been met. Of the 10,000 or so civil servants who were to be decentralised, the Taoiseach has confirmed that to date 2,200 have moved, with another 1,200 somewhere in the pipeline. Given what has happened with the plan and that most sensible people looking at it now realise that the original plans as announced by the then Minister, Mr. McCreevy, will not materialise, will he agree it is time to carry out a stocktaking of the decentralisation plan in total, to carry out an audit, to see what is practically possible, to look at problems such as he has described with the State agencies?

It is not just a case of industrial relations problems in the State agencies; the problem in some of the State agencies is that specialist people do not want to move. If the Government wants to effect the decentralisation of some of these agencies, it will be necessary to create a new pool of specialist people in the place where they are to be relocated and then keep the existing specialists wandering around Dublin reading books or reading poetry rather than doing the job they were originally employed to do. Is it not time to take a new look at the decentralisation plan, recast it and come up with something that is realistic rather than keep going on with the fiction that the original McCreevy plan will some day come to fruition?

John O'Donoghue (Kerry South, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is nice to see poetry in the ascendant.

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

To be clear, Deputy Gilmore made a point about the OECD report and I refer to the interpretation he places on it. The OECD has not criticised the decentralisation policy nor has it said it is a bad idea. It said that if it is not properly implemented, if it is not carried out in a planned way, there could be the prospect of fragmentation. I wish to be clear from the point of view of our experience. Decentralisation has worked in this country. The Deputy will know of many examples of where it has worked and it has all worked. I know there was a time when Fine Gael and the Labour Party decided to call a halt to the decentralisation programme before Deputy Gilmore was a member of the Labour Party, but it was proved to be a wrong decision.

The OECD has sounded a note of caution——

Eamon Gilmore (Dún Laoghaire, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It has.

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

——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.

Eamon Gilmore (Dún Laoghaire, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I remind the Taoiseach there are three legs to this particular stool. It is not just a matter of what the Government wants and what the staff want or do not want and the issue being resolved in the traditional IR sense between two parties. The third leg of this stool is the public interest. There is a serious question here, and it is what the OECD referred to, regarding whether the decentralisation plan, as envisaged, is actually good for the service that is being delivered to the public and whether the taxpayer is getting value for money. This issue has to be considered. It is all very well to talk about engagement. That is fine and I do not disagree with that approach, but for engagement to take place, there has to be some clarity about the Government's intentions at this stage.

It is clear that the original McCreevy plan will not happen as it was envisaged. It would be advisable for Government at this stage to relook at the decentralisation plan, recast it in a more realistic way and look at the problems, for example, of specialist agencies or specialist staff who manifestly are not going to move. There is no point in dreaming on that it will happen. It would be much better if a recast, more realistic decentralisation plan was devised and announced by Government rather than the fiction continuing that this will happen at some stage when clearly it will not. In the meantime, staff who should be applying their minds to the job on hand and service to the public are focused on where they will be next year or in five years' time.

Perhaps the Taoiseach would clarify one issue. In the original McCreevy plan the intention was that the headquarters of eight Departments, including the Ministers' offices, were to be located in different places. Is that still the intention? For example, is it still the intention that the Department of Arts, Sport and Tourism, with which you, a Cheann Comhairle, would have been familiar, is be located in Killarney? It is the intention that the Minister for Arts, Sport and Tourism, Deputy Cullen, will travel from Waterford to Killarney on a Monday morning and back up to Dublin on a Tuesday and continue going around in circles for whatever few months he will be left in that office?

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

The validity of the Deputy's comments falls away when he falls into this stereotypical argument, which is not envisaged. It is envisaged that a core ministerial team will remain with the Minister to deal with his parliamentary and ministerial duties in Dublin. That was always the intention. The Deputy asked what was the problem with moving a headquarters. There is no problem moving a headquarters. One can move the headquarters of Bord na Móna from Newbridge to Tullamore or Portlaoise in the morning if one wants. Headquarters can be set up outside this city. Let us not fall into that trap.

The public interest is an issue and we are making sure to decentralise, as we decentralised previously, in a way that does not take from the efficacy and the efficiency of output. Recasting results from engagement. For example, the Revenue Commissioners moved to Kildare. Its ICT unit was supposed to move there but the commissioners had a discussion on this. They came back to me as Minister and made a good business case that the move should not happen but other sections could move. I had no problem accommodating that because a business case was made that it would be best not to do it that way following further detailed examination. That is the good, sensible engagement about which I am talking.

The immediate reaction was that decentralisation was being compulsorily imposed and we were riding roughshod over people's rights and entitlements. I never agreed to, said or indicated that would happen. We hoped in my part of the country, if the programme was implemented in full and in a timely fashion, that we would be a good beneficiary of it. I was never of the view decentralisation would automatically happen and that it would have to happen through the usual ordinary industrial relations processes. If that works out, it works out and that is still my position. There are good examples of decentralisation around the country, including in my own constituency. I can say that hand on heart because I know it to be the case. The staff are tremendously happy there and they are doing excellent work.

In the meantime where locations are earmarked, as the Deputy said, the staff are getting on with their work. Their representative bodies are looking after their interests. I would like more engagement but there is no suggestion of people needing to be distracted, that something is about to happen against their interests. That certainly will not happen. If the Deputy returned to his occupation, he would be well capable of doing this.

Let us deal with the issues as they stand. A total of 3,400 officials have moved or are ready to go. In the State agency sector, 20% of staff or 1,000 officials have indicated to the CAF they would like to be considered for a move. Whether that can be accommodated depends. One of the best ways to sort this out in order that people are not left in an administrative limbo about whether they are moving is to get over the refusal to engage in the issues. As Minister for Finance, I was as candid as possible giving whatever reassurance people required for that engagement to take place because I want a sensible outcome to all these issues. However, we cannot do it on the basis of the dialogue of the deaf. A Department should not be expected to walk away from a process that has not been given an opportunity to proceed. Let us have the confidence of our positions and get into the process and let us get to the point the Deputy is discussing.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Labour Court struck down the proposed unfair method of moving ahead with the decentralisation of State agencies that linked relocation with promotional prospects. SIPTU, which represents 1,600 State agency employees, has called repeatedly on Government to abandon the proposed relocation of State agencies. It has been said time and again that this is intended to be a voluntary process. Does the Taoiseach accept that a very different situation applies to State agencies than to civil servants in Departments in which there is a degree of interchangeability? Given the specific roles, responsibilities and expertise that State agencies require, there is not the same level of interchangeability.

The last time the Taoiseach answered questions on this was last October as Minister for Finance. He indicated to the House at that time that there was ongoing consideration and engagement and that a solution would and must be found. On the basis of that commitment last October, what progress has been made eight months later in addressing this issue that continues to present itself and does not appear to be making much headway? Can the Taoiseach give us some sense as to whether progress is being made in seeking a solution to this matter? Where stands the Taoiseach now in relation to the proposals on the relocation of State agencies?

I noted Deputy Kenny's reference to the FÁS IT unit located in Birr, in the Taoiseach's consistency, and in Dublin. This issue was raised last Thursday at the annual conference of the Association of Higher Civil and Public Servants in Croke Park in Dublin. The information that has been cited appears to be the case, that in the absence of broadband, thereby not having the wherewithal to establish video-conferencing through information technology, people are obliged to travel to regular meetings and engagements and this results in added cost and places inconvenience on people who heretofore have worked on the same site.

A number of solutions could be brought about to address this problem, not least of which is the universal roll-out of broadband access. As these matters were addressed at the annual conference of the Association of Higher Civil and Public Servants last Thursday, has the Taoiseach taken on board the criticisms it highlighted of the outworking of relocations that have already taken place? What actions does he and his Department propose to take?

I wish to follow on from what Deputy Gilmore said. I do not think that Opposition Members want to make these points repeatedly but we are looking towards the tenth anniversary of Mr. McCreevy's announcement of an intended decentralisation of 10,000 civil servants and State agency workers. Under the Taoiseach's new stewardship, is it not well past time to spell out a new realistic set of goals for that decentralisation plan so that we can put to bed much of the uncertainties that were created by Mr. McCreevy's assertion in his budget day speech a number of years ago?

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

The Deputy is asking me to express an opinion on an issue relating to nine public servants out of a total of 3,400 who have moved or who are assigned to move, with whom there is no problem.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is only one example.

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

It is probably the only example the Deputy can quote.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

There are other examples.

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

I can quote far more examples of where it is working. The problem I have with some of this debate since it began is that people are talking out of both sides of their mouths. They ask why it has not happened by now and in the meantime they are opposed to it. Do people want civil and public servants to stay or to go? People should take a position and then let us figure out how——

Eamon Gilmore (Dún Laoghaire, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

What does the Taoiseach want?

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

For clarification——

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

I want decentralisation to work. I believe in decentralisation.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Will the Taoiseach address my questions?

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

I am addressing the Deputy's questions.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I have been very clear. I have supported the proposal from day one.

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

I can express an opinion in reply on what I believe is the Deputy's position. I can do that in the House and the Deputy can stand up and disagree with me. I do not have to be kowtowed to. I could bring up the local newspapers, which inquire non-stop about when we will have decentralisation, but when I come into the House people tell me not to let it happen.

I believe and know from experience that decentralisation is a plus, but there are legitimate issues that must be addressed if it is to happen. The problem is we do not have the level of engagement to scope those issues to find out to what extent we can deal with them. The best way to solve the problem is to engage in discussion and seek to resolve the issues. As I said in response to Deputy Gilmore, where an issue arose in a business case suggesting there was another solution, another solution was found. That did not mean decentralisation did not take place. It was recast in a way that met with staff requirements and with the business case put by management. It is possible to do these things.

I am flexible and interested in trying to solve problems if they exist. However, I cannot be asked to withdraw from a policy position on the basis there is no engagement, particularly when the Labour Court has indicated that the best way of dealing with the matter is by engaging with the Irish Congress of Trade Unions centrally on all of the issues across the agencies to see if we can come up with some solutions. We do that with every other aspect of policy. If Government sets a policy and there are legitimate stakeholder issues to be addressed, let us engage and discuss them. The problem is this does not happen sufficiently.

Some people represented in the organisations have indicated a willingness to move, but whether they move will depend on whether, having looked at all the issues, it is possible for them to be accommodated in their own or another organisation. Those people are not being mentioned in the equation, but they are entitled to be represented, as we would all agree. There is not unanimity on the issue, although a strong position has been put in industrial relations terms with regard to aspects of it. I respect that position, but I cannot accept that as a result of that, in terms of the state of our industrial relations, we cannot sit down and discuss the issues. In some respects we are at that point on some of the issues. That is an unwarranted and unnecessary position in the context of whatever assurances I was able to give formerly as Minister for Finance with responsibility in the area of the public service in the interests of seeing to what extent we can solve the problems. That is the sensible approach.

In response to the Deputy's question on what was raised at a particular association's conference, the decentralisation implementation group has, as parts of its terms of reference, always been aware of the business issues surrounding the relocation programme. With that in mind, each organisation participating in the programme was asked to prepare detailed implementation plans, including risk mitigation plans, etc. Given the high levels of professionalism in the Civil Service, and its success in managing such projects — it has had over 25 years success managing such projects — I have every confidence the existing high standards of public services can be fully maintained in a decentralised environment.

This is my position. It is not based on some bald assertion or opinion but on experience. I acknowledge that the problems in the State agency sector are more complex and that the sector does not have a history of decentralisation. However, there has been a great indication of support for the process by staff. Some 11,000 individual workers in the public service have applied to the Central Applications Facility declaring an interest. This does not mean they have committed themselves fully to decentralisation, depending on how it works out, but there is significant interest.

The number proposed in the programme was 10,000. Therefore, the significant interest shown is an indication that the ambition of the programme was not misplaced in terms of the numbers interested in undertaking such a career move voluntarily depending on other factors being accommodated. Let us be fair. People are suggesting we forget about the programme because it has not happened overnight. I do not believe the facts as they stand warrant that position, although I am sure there are problems. They are there to be sorted out. Management and unions sort out such matters all the time. It is not for me to micromanage that situation. The Deputy can raise specifics to me in regard to numbers, but those matters can be resolved. It does not mean the whole programme is absurd. That is my point.

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

I call Deputy Charles Flanagan.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I have not asked my supplementary question.

Charles Flanagan (Laois-Offaly, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

In fairness——

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

I will call Deputy Ó Caoláin immediately after Deputy Charles Flanagan.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Taoiseach was responding to me. With respect, I have no issue with Deputy Flanagan but the Taoiseach was responding to me and now I have an opportunity to——

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

If Deputy Flanagan does not mind I will call Deputy Ó Caoláin.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The time is elapsing. Will the Leas-Cheann Comhairle clarify——

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

I will allow the time.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Go raibh maith agat. It is not an issue of difference as to the value or import of what was proposed. I recognise it was important and could contribute a valuable rejuvenation to several identified locations and that because of advancements in technology it should not render the work of these Departments and agencies lesser or make it more difficult. However, clearly there are difficulties and these must be addressed. In the absence of the roll-out of broadband, does the Taoiseach not agree that these matters must be addressed to overcome technological deficiencies in terms of the outworking of these new and particularly bilocated offices, as cited in the earlier instance? The Taoiseach cited an overall figure in his reply on the numbers of those who expressed interest in taking up a decentralised post. Does he have the number that specifically applies to those who are employed in the State agencies?

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

Some 1,000 people working in State agencies have applied to the Central Applications Facility.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

My final question is to seek clarification on the Taoiseach's reply. Does he indicate an acceptance that, given the extent of the resistance, the strength of the opposition of SIPTU and other voices to the State agencies' relocation and the Labour Court decision, he believes it is the right time to sit down and address this substantively between the various partners, including the representatives of those involved in the trade union movement?

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

That has always been my position. As the Deputy knows, there was an IR problem in the FÁS test case that was taken and everybody stepped back to wait and see the outcome. That is fair enough and I understand that. The Labour Court suggested how we would proceed. The Labour Court did not present a recommendation and tell us to go back to the status quo ante but provided a means by which we could proceed from there with that clarification, which was necessary and I will not have a quibble with it. I respect the outcome of the Labour Court and its recommendation. We must move on, but the problem is we are not moving on. The best industrial practice is that we act on all aspects of a recommendation. The recommendation covered specifics and the general approach that should be adopted to see how we can resolve the problem generally.

Charles Flanagan (Laois-Offaly, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Anybody listening to the proceedings for the past three quarters of an hour might be under a misapprehension that this is not Question Time but speech time. Anybody who thought the answers of the new Taoiseach would be more concise and shorter than those of his predecessor might also be under a misapprehension.

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

Let the Deputy ask me a short question and I will give a short answer.

Deputies:

Quick-fire.

Charles Flanagan (Laois-Offaly, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Perhaps we can be objective for a moment. I heard the Taoiseach say that the Opposition has been too negative and the process is taking a little more time than originally anticipated, but the scheme is good. The most successful example of decentralisation is in Portlaoise in my and the Taoiseach's constituency. The Taoiseach cited it here and in other places as the flagship of decentralisation. I put it to the Taoiseach that there are, in fact, six buildings in Portlaoise incorporating sections of the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and if one is speaking about efficiency, having people in six different locations in a small provincial town is not in the best interests of proper management. When will a proper programme of building be undertaken for the staff who are scattered around the town in six locations? I understand there will be eight locations before the end of the summer. Is that proper management? Is that proper consideration of efficiencies? This is the flagship project.

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

I thank Deputy Flanagan for putting out item No. 1 on his A list to the Taoiseach for resolution of constituency problems. On a serious note, I will have the matter examined and see whether there are plans to consolidate. I cannot answer the Deputy at the moment but this is an issue in which we will have a joint interest and we will try to find a joint solution.

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

That concludes Taoiseach's Questions.