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

Question 2: To ask the Taoiseach Taoiseach the number of staff in his Department who have applied for relocation under the decentralisation programme; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [30244/10]

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

Question 3: To ask the Taoiseach Taoiseach the number of members of his staff who have applied for relocation under the decentralisation programme; the number of such staff who have actually transferred; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [32310/10]

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

Question 4: To ask the Taoiseach Taoiseach the status of the decentralisation programme in his Department; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [32337/10]

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

I propose to take Questions Nos. 2, 3 and 4 together. Of the 159 civil servants currently serving in my Department, 23 have applied through the central applications facility, CAF, to relocate under the decentralisation programme. The breakdown by grade is: assistant principal, seven; higher executive officer, three; administrative officer, two; executive officer, three; staff officer, one; clerical officer; seven. A total of 32 former members of staff have already been assigned to decentralised posts.

There are no proposals to decentralise my Department or any of the bodies under its aegis. It is a matter for those Departments to which staff from my Department have decentralised to assign such staff to locations outside of Dublin.

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

What is the status of the receiving point to which the 23 staff who have applied for decentralisation from his Department want to be decentralised? Are those locations live in terms of the decentralisation programme? Is the decentralisation programme in general now in suspension in perpetuity or is it intended to go ahead with it as was originally announced by the former Minister for Finance, Mr. McCreevy?

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

The 23 staff members who have applied to be decentralised from my Department have applied to the following Departments and agencies, the Department of Social Protection, the Office of Public Works, the Department of Defence, the Department of Education and Skills, the Department of Finance, the Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources, the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the Revenue Commissioners, the Equality Authority, the Valuation Office, the National Roads Authority, Ordnance Survey Ireland and the National Standards Authority of Ireland.

The Department of Finance deals with the details of the programme more generally. In this phase of decentralisation that has been announced approximately 4,400 staff are due to be relocated. I understand approximately 3,180 staff have been relocated to date. The Department is continuing to finalise the relocation of the remainder of staff who have applied for decentralisation. In the case of a further 5,000 applications there was a deferral until 2011.

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

The Office of Public Works in St. Stephen's Green has not been vacated yet because some of the staff do not want to leave. A further 180 staff were to go to Kanturk and Claremorris. The moves to both of those locations appear to be stalled. A total of 35 reviews on decentralisation are due to be carried out for next year. Can we take it that the remaining staff are not going anywhere, literally, in the sense that significant amounts of money have been spent on purchasing sites and consultants' reports? Are we leaving public servants living in a land of illusion that decentralisation to those locations will take place? I am supportive of well-managed decentralisation because they have spread benefits throughout the country but this was an almighty botched job. One is leaving thousands of people who have applied to be decentralised in a limbo in that they do not know whether it is ever going to happen. We are now faced with 35 reviews to take place next year. No one has any idea of whether they are going anywhere.

The Government bought sites at exorbitant prices, but there is no money in the kitty to build these things. Is it time to tell people that decentralisation will either not occur or not occur for a long time?

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

The fact is that decentralisation to Trim has taken place. Nos. 50 and 51 on St. Stephen's Green have been vacated, as I understand it. That is the up-to-date position. In respect of-----

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

My information is that there are a number of architects who do not want to move out of St. Stephen's Green.

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

It is a voluntary scheme, as the Deputy knows. There is no coercion involved.

First of all, I welcome the Deputy's support for the decentralisation programme. That was not the position of his former finance spokesperson, but they did not agree on everything.

Regarding the situation of the transfer of places, we made the decision last year about deferring relocation in 35 cases - about 5,000 people - so that we could implement what was in hand, namely, the 4,400 being transferred. That is being advanced and more than three quarters of those people have been relocated. That is a significant move. The Western Development Commission looked at the impact this had in the Deputy's own area and came forward with a positive report about the benefits of decentralisation to towns in the west, for example. That is something of which the Deputy would be aware.

Regarding the other issue of costs, the Comptroller and Auditor General has done a report on all of this and I understand the Committee of Public Accounts will be dealing with this matter on 2 December. It is important to point out that the disposal and vacation of properties, etc., in Dublin in order to facilitate the funding of the decentralisation raised to the tune of about €550 million and the properties cost about €338 million for the relocations. Obviously, there are issues of costs to look at, but it is not correct to say that the thing has been unbalanced or that there has not been sufficient money raised to deal with that.

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

I said it was botched. A well-planned decentralisation programme has always worked well, but this one was not well-planned. In fairness to the man beside the Taoiseach and without being parochial about it, he wanted to send his Department closer to Knock Airport. That was objected to and turned down by An Bord Pleanála. The Minister then sent those staff to Tubbercurry with the intention of moving them to Charlestown. A site was acquired, but the process is now stalled.

Some 35 reviews are pending for next year, many of which are in locations where land was bought for sites for decentralised offices, but nothing has happened or is happening. Arising from the reviews, will decentralisation go ahead as originally intended?

The Taoiseach mentioned the Comptroller and Auditor General's report. His September report was scathing of the lack of parliamentary scrutiny of how things were done and of the facts that FÁS paid more than double the original estimate for its headquarters' site in Birr, that 12 buildings there were lying entirely empty and that, in seven other locations, 40% of the available space is not being used. This is an indication of a type of scheme that traditionally has been successful when well planned. Due to the secrecy desired by the then Minister for Finance in this case, however, the programme has fallen asunder.

The Comptroller and Auditor General's report also stated that 12 sites costing €43.8 million were bought in locations where decentralisation is not proceeding and that five office blocks leased for €800,000 annually have been left under-occupied. If ever anything smacked of indecisiveness and a lack of confidence, this is one scheme that has those in spades.

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

The simple point I will make to the Deputy is that detailed questions on specific sites or issues should definitely be dealt with by the Department of Finance, which has overall charge. I make the general point that the disposal of properties in Dublin at that time brought to the Exchequer a sum of the order of €550 million which greatly exceeds any costs incurred elsewhere. I make that point because indications are often given about costs of acquisition but not about proceeds of sale. In addition, €75 million worth of property was transferred to the Affordable Homes Partnership which can be calculated into that sum, and joint venture development schemes have been worked out by the OPW that also have a value. These matters will be discussed in due course but I make the point to bring to attention the moves which have been made and those currently under way.

The building in Newbridge for the Department of Defence is now complete and staff based in Dublin are scheduled to move there during November. Similarly, in Roscommon town, the building for the Property Registration Authority was due to be completed before the end of October, with occupation to commence thereafter, and a preferred tender for the Tipperary town building for the Department of Justice and Law Reform has been selected and a letter of acceptance of tender is expected to issue shortly. This is the rate of progress in respect of those ventures for which there are moves and those cases where deferrals have taken place will be reviewed in due course.

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

The Taoiseach stated that 3,180 staff had been moved to various locations as a result of decentralisation. How many of those staff were moved from Dublin? My understanding is that, to date, approximately half of the re-allocation of staff has been between locations outside Dublin and concerns staff who are already based outside Dublin.

The Taoiseach stated that some of the decentralisation proposals have been deferred until 2011. Is it still intended to go ahead with those proposals or will there be any scaling back?

We were told there would be a review of the entire decentralisation programme and a final decision would be made on the projects which were to go ahead. Has that review been completed and, if not, when is it likely to be completed?

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

As the Deputy knows, that review is due to be considered and completed in 2011. The current priority in the programme is to effect the decentralisation of those proposals which have been approved and are going ahead. I gave broad figures and have some supplementary information to the effect that 3,153 people have moved, with 5,000 positions subject to review. I do not have the numbers for movements intra-Dublin. The position concerns the number of posts that were to be created in decentralised locations. Where these are open they will be made available to people. The fact is that some 3,000 people have moved to those locations. Regarding decentralisation, if a person from Wexford in a position in Limerick had a possibility of moving to Wexford, that is as much a decentralisation for that person as it would be to move from Dublin to Tubbercurry. It is the same principle.

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

It is not because we need to know how much double counting is involved. The Taoiseach stated that if somebody moves from Limerick to Wexford, that is a move according to plan. However, if there is a corresponding move by somebody from Wexford back to Limerick or from somewhere else to Limerick to fill the vacancy that arises, that is double counting. My understanding of the original plan for decentralisation was to move about one third of the Civil Service out of Dublin. If that is the case we need to have some measure as to how successful or otherwise that plan was. The original figure for decentralisation out of Dublin was 10,922. How much of that decentralisation has occurred? Also, will the Taoiseach say whether any assessment has been made on the impact of the efficiency of Departments as a result of decentralisation?

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

I do not have that level of detailed information, and it would be best to ask the Department of Finance. I am just giving the Deputy the information I have. Of the 3,180 staff who have been unable to move to various locations across the country, some 2,200 have been to various locations which are not the gateway and hub towns. The remaining 900 have relocated to gateways and hubs, and have increased the total number of civil servants in non-commercial State-sponsored bodies located in those gateway and hub locations outside Dublin. That figure has now moved to 13,300. Therefore, 3,180 posts have been allocated to almost 40 locations. Full completion of the projects under way and approved will result in approximately 4,400 moves overall.

That is the only information I have about the benefit from moves, efficiency and so on. However, the Western Development Commission did a study in 2009 which found the economic impact of the relocation of public sector jobs to the western region had been positive and significant. The report said public sector employees had taken up opportunities to relocate there for quality of life issues, in particular the many benefits realised by easier commuting to work. For those who had moved from Dublin, the western region offered many advantages, such as cost savings, lower living costs and house prices, as well as benefits from living within close communities, being closer to families and living in rural locations. The impacts were significant in all cases.

A wide range of factors has been taken into account and balanced against each other in the selection of Departments or agencies for decentralisation. The national spatial strategy envisaged that county towns and other medium-sized towns, particularly those strategically placed in a regional context, would have roles to play in acting as so-called local capitals. They would allow for the development of their service functions and provide opportunities for a diversified employment base and productivity growth, both in the towns and in the related smaller villages and rural areas.

Virtually all the locations included in the decentralisation programme are explicitly mentioned in section 4 of the national spatial strategy, which outlines how each region will participate in the strategy. The relocation of public service employment to towns such as these underpins the important role which many must continue to play into the future. That is as much information as I can give the Deputy.

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

Regarding the sites that have been purchased at a number of locations around the country at heavily inflated Celtic tiger prices, has any consideration been given to those sites that are clearly not now going to be utilised? The Minister for Social Protection is beside the Taoiseach; some €10 million was paid for a site of two acres at Drogheda.

Séamus Kirk (Louth, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am loth to interrupt the Deputy, but in this particular series of questions we have a problem in that quite a number of the questions should really be directed to the Minister for Finance.

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

I am asking the Taoiseach. I have only cited Drogheda as an example. We can take Mullingar or Waterford, where respectively €8 million and €8.25 million were spent in relation to the Department of Education and Skills and the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. Three sites cost a total of €26.5 million. What does the Taoiseach expect will now happen to these very high-priced sites?

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

A review of the next phase of the decentralisation programme will possibly indicate the use or otherwise of some of those sites. The issue, in terms of the current phase, including acquisitions such as the Deputy has mentioned, is to the effect that total expenditure on the property aspect of the programme up to December 2009 was €338 million. Those costs were offset by savings achieved through the reallocation of property by the OPW to other schemes at the end of 2008 valued in the region of €550 million.

Those costs were offset by savings from a reallocation of property by the OPW to other schemes at the end of 2008, valued in the region of €550 million. Of that amount, more than €350 million relates to the disposal of high value sites at the height of the property boom. Property valued at that time at €75 million was transferred to the affordable homes partnership. Those are the facts in that regard. If there are details required in relation to individual matters a parliamentary question should be tabled to the Department of Finance.

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

I accept that other properties were disposed of and that in this regard there is a net positive balance between disposal and purchase. However, I am speaking specifically of the sites purchased at high prices. Can I take it from the Taoiseach's reply that the sites at Drogheda, Mullingar and Waterford remain under consideration? Is it his intention to hold those sites open and for how long before a decision is taken on what use they will be put to or there being once again offered on the open market?

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

A question on the details in regard to individual sites should be directed to the Department of Finance. There is a review to take place next year in regard to the many sites in respect of which a decision has been deferred, which sites may well include those referred to by the Deputy. In that context, decisions will be made in regard to what arrangements will be put in place for the following phase of decentralisation, which may involve the use of those sites for that purpose. Until the review is complete, one cannot be certain what will happen.