Denis O'Donovan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister to the House. We are dealing with the Public Service Management (Recruitment and Appointments) (Amendment) Bill 2013, Committee Stage.

Denis O'Donovan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendments Nos. 1 to 8, inclusive, 8a and 13 to 18, inclusive, are cognate and will be discussed together by agreement.

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

I thank the Cathaoirleach for his welcome. I am glad to be back. We made good progress on this matter during the Second Stage debate last week. It is not a very long or technical Bill. The Bill is intended to facilitate movement within the public service. This set of amendments Nos. 1 to 8, and 13 to 18 together, is consequent on the substantial amendment, namely, amendment No. 1. The purpose of this group of amendments is to remove the Garda Síochána from the remit of the Bill. This is to reflect the view of the Minister for Justice and Equality, and the Garda Commissioner, that the authority for deployment and redeployment of members of the Garda Síochána, which currently vests in the Garda Commissioner under section 26 of the Garda Síochána Act 2005, should continue to rest with the Commissioner alone.

This is to reflect the view of the Minister for Justice and Equality and the Garda Commissioner that the authority for deployment and redeployment of members of the Garda, which is currently vested in the Commissioner under section 26 of the Garda Síochána Act 2005, should continue to rest with the Commissioner alone. I have reflected on this and agree that is the correct course of action. We all jealously guard the right of the Commissioner to deploy members of the Garda Síochána operationally as he sees fit. It would not be appropriate for that to be paralleled by the work of the Public Appointments Service.

Thomas Byrne (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is a sensible alteration. The Garda should not be part of this and the role of the Commissioner should not be interfered with. Gardaí are regularly redeployed.

I disagree fundamentally with the Minister that the Bill is technical. It is radical and goes way beyond what it is currently set out in the public service agreements. It should be treated as such. I am surprised that I have not received representations from any of the public service unions on the Bill. I wonder if they have their eyes on the ball, notwithstanding the Minister's statement that he has discussed the legislation with them.

Denis O'Donovan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

On amendment No. 1.

Thomas Byrne (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I wonder if the unions have explained it to their members and whether those members know what is going through the Oireachtas.

Denis O'Donovan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendment No. 9, in the name of Senator Thomas Byrne and others, involves a potential charge to the Exchequer and is ruled out of order.

Thomas Byrne (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I protest that ruling vigorously, as well as the whole operation of the rule about something being a charge on the Exchequer. A new definition is being introduced in law on basic pay which does not exist anywhere else. The idea that I cannot propose an amendment to it is crazy. There is no intention to cost the State money.

Denis O'Donovan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I understand the Senator's position. Unfortunately, I cannot discuss the ruling here. That is how the matter is dealt with.

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

If Senator Byrne raises it in the discussion of the section, I will respond.

Thomas Byrne (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 10:

In page 6, line 48, after "day" to insert the following:"after having first given notice within every relevant public service body and having sought suitable candidates for redeployment and having first considered, in accordance with section 57D, whether to designate any such candidate who seeks redeployment".

As drafted, the Bill gives the Public Appointments Service the power to designate an employee of a public service for redeployment. It does not ask whether the person wants to be redeployed or whether he or she has requested it. It seems to me that it should be put into the Bill. It is part of the last two agreements and would be a sensible provision. One should look for volunteers rather than redeploy by way of the strong hand of the Public Appointments Service. The Minister is providing the service with a radical power which has not been agreed with the unions. It would be better for workplace relations if a voluntary element was provided for in statute.

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

This has worked very well on an ad hoc basis up to now. Obviously, it is a matter of voluntary movement within the public service. As I indicated on Second Stage, we have discussed this with the unions and they are fully conversant with all of it. The legislation has been drafted to give effect to the agreement reached with the trade unions on pay and mobility.

I acknowledge Senator Byrne's wish to provide staff with the maximum possible opportunity to volunteer for available posts. In essence, what is suggested in the amendment is a requirement that, where the skills being sought are available across the public service generally, the Public Appointments Service ask all 300,000 public servants if they wish to volunteer. That is not practical. We have had 10,000 voluntary movements in the last few years. People see the positions that are available, they volunteer and are moved within the architecture of Croke Park I. That will continue under the agreed architecture of the Haddington Road agreement, hopefully. Redeployment is obviously a better option than redundancy. We have had in the past ridiculous situations in which people had literally no work. In some State agencies, they sat for years on end with no work while drawing a wage. In the current climate, that is entirely unacceptable and no trade union or other person is arguing for it.

Thomas Byrne (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Neither are we, in fairness.

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

I am not suggesting that is the case. I am setting out the backdrop against which this sort of mobility should be provided for in statute rather than on an ad hoc basis. It made sense to bring community welfare officers into the Department of Social Protection and to restructure FÁS as Intreo while redeploying staff. While the redeployment was agreed without resistance regarding terms and conditions and the timing of movement, there was no statutory basis for doing it. The provision in the Bill is about putting redeployment on a statutory footing.

We must be practical in what we do. We do not want to provide in statute for requirements that are wholly impractical, such as having to ask all 300,000 public servants if they have the skills required to fill a vacancy in the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government in Wexford. It is better to operate on a volunteer basis as far as is practical, while not being so prescriptive in the legislation as to make the Bill unworkable for the Public Appointments Service.

Thomas Byrne (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Nobody disputes the need for redeployment or suggests that people who are doing nothing should be left in place. Nobody is saying that should continue. We support redeployment. My amendment seeks merely to provide for what has been agreed in the Haddington Road agreement, which states on page 12 that the Department should identify the number of posts at each relevant grade that are surplus and the location of the surplus.

Once a surplus has been established on this basis, the identification of staff to be redeployed will proceed as follows: volunteers will be sought for the redeployment panel and if the number of volunteers falls short of the surplus the process of last in, first out will be applied as appropriate. It seems perfectly reasonable to have some voluntary element to it. The Minister is hanging his opposition to my amendment on the basis that I require this of every relevant public service body. The inclusion of the term "every relevant" was to narrow it down but it is not narrowed down in the Haddington Road agreement. What is wrong with the Labour Party asking people to volunteer first and putting that in statute? It was included in the Croke Park Agreement and in Croke Park II. If the Minister cannot find volunteers, there are compulsory measures. The strong hand still exists now that the Minister is in power. There should be a voluntary procedure in statute and I do not see anything wrong with that. If the Minister thinks there is some technical difficulty with my amendment, which is the basis of his opposition, let that be the reason I withdraw it. I can resubmit it on Report Stage. Why not have a voluntary scheme in statute to see if there are volunteers? It is not to make redeployment voluntary, it is to see if people are looking for it before we force people who do not want to move. There may well be people who want to move. We are looking for the Public Appointments Service to look for that before designating people. The Minister and his officials should think about this. We are not looking to stall redeployment or to put the kibosh on it, we are simply seeking a requirement that is in the relevant agreements, that volunteers are sought before the compulsory nature is forced on it.

Denis Landy (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I listened with interest to Senator Thomas Byrne, who alluded to the fact that the necessary measures for this matter are proposed in the Haddington Road agreement. They are already in the Croke Park Agreement and are dealt with in another forum. The Minister has adequately explained why there is no need to include these measures. Some 10,000 people have redeployed within the public sector over the past seven to ten years. All of those were given an opportunity, they all volunteered and there was no problem. Senator Byrne is trying to create a problem, for the sake of his amendment, when none exists. The Minister pointed out that, in the current circumstances, people have been given the opportunity to redeploy rather than being made redundant. They are willing, albeit reluctant, to do so. Savings must be made.

When Fianna Fáil was in government and a grand announcement about decentralisation was made, no thought was given to the staff who, theoretically, were going to be sent to the four corners of Ireland. It never happened because the great man went to Brussels instead. Members should reflect on this.

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

I am not making a technical point. If I accepted the amendment, it would fundamentally hamstring the operation of the redeployment process. My objection is not technical but fundamental. I cannot accept the amendment for that reason.

Detailed operational protocols have been negotiated with the trade union movement and set out who should be notified. The trade union movement understands the practical issue and the protocols are agreed and concern what staff should be circulated with information. The protocol also provides that certain posts should be confined to organisations closing down within a limited timeframe. That has been agreed with the trade union movement. The processes are embedded and well understood. I ask the Senator to facilitate us enacting the measure to provide for the new Haddington Road agreement so that we can have redeployment, protect employment and have no compulsory redundancies, leading to a more efficient public service.

John Kelly (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have a question on redeployment. Apparently, the psychiatric nursing service has no HSE transfer policy even though there is only one organisation. How does redeployment apply where there is no transfer policy in place? People are trying to transfer from various parts of the country to other parts of the country. The policy is not in place so it cannot happen. If redeployment was in place, would they have the opportunity to get to where they want?

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

There are two separate issues, transfers and redeployment. Mutually accepted transfers are a feature of the public service generally but people cannot transfer if there is no job to go to. I was directly involved with the trade unions and psychiatric nurses in respect of St. Senan's Psychiatric Hospital in Enniscorthy, which is now officially closed. There was a full five-year programme of redeployment for the staff to migrate into the community settings in which they will work and agreement on who will work where. There are redeployment strategies in the public service and in the HSE, which deal with the closing down of old institutions that are no longer acceptable and the migration to better, modern community settings such as those provided for psychiatric services in the community. The new transparent model is something we would like to see more of.

As far as practicable, I would like to see the role of the Public Appointments Service enhanced to facilitate transfers. We all get cases where someone would like transfer and, where there is a mutually agreed transfer, it is stopped by an agency because they do not want to lose someone they value in exchange for someone they do not know. If that was done at arm's length by the Public Appointments Service, it would be a good thing to migrate to. I am cognisant of the Senator's point.

Thomas Byrne (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will not pursue it any further. I fully understand there are protocols in respect of redeployment and I fully understand the Croke Park agreement and the Haddington Road agreement. Although I will not pursue it, I do not understand why the Minister cannot provide a statutory basis for some element of voluntary selection or volunteerism, as is the practice. Why would the Minister not put the practice into law in a generalised way in order to operate in an efficient way that does not hamstring the redeployment process? No one is arguing against redeployment but the Bill provides the Public Appointments Service with substantially more power than in the agreement. I am prepared to withdraw the amendment but I may resubmit it on Report Stage. I would like the Minister to think about this point, which is reasonable.

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

This is a technical amendment to clarify that when a person is redeployed, the total pay in the new post must not be less than basic pay in the old post. The provision as published provides that where a person is redeployed, the basic pay in the new post will not be less than the basic pay in the old post. The text anticipates that, on assignment to the new post, allowances will always be payable but that may not be the position in every case. The text is being amended to remove any doubt on the issue. It is something we discussed during the debate on Second State and I want to bring clarity to it.

Thomas Byrne (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 12:

In page 9, to delete lines 31 to 37 and substitute the following:“(c) the terms of any collective agreement negotiated with any recognised trade union or staff association concerned, relating to mobility or redeployment of public service employees or if no such collective agreement is applicable, the terms of any policy for the time being of the Minister;”.

However, other than that, the collective agreement, presumably, should come first. Providing for them in this order gives the impression that the Minister's policy is superior or has more meaning for the PAS than any collective agreement.

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

I have thought a deal about the Senator's amendment. On reflecting on it there is merit in it, but it would put an onus on the PAS to adopt a role in the applicability and interpretation of collective agreements on redeployment and mobility. On reflection and having consulted my human resources policy division, that role is appropriate to the human resources management, remuneration and industrial relations division of my Department and it would not be appropriate to give it to the PAS. While I am well aware of the intent of the amendment, the terms I have set out which capture the statutory responsibility given to the Minister under the Ministers and Secretaries Act 2011 should be preserved.

Denis O'Donovan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is the amendment being pressed?

Thomas Byrne (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I understand Report Stage is being taken immediately following Committee Stage, which is unacceptable. If so, I will call divisions. I am prepared to withdraw the amendment and return to it on Report Stage----

Denis O'Donovan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is not fully agreed to.

Thomas Byrne (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am hearing rumours that it will happen. We will be happy if Report Stage is not taken immediately.

Denis O'Donovan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We will deal with that matter when we come to it. It was not agreed to on the Order of Business and, therefore, will have to be agreed at the conclusion of Committee Stage.

Thomas Byrne (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I do not quite get the Minister's point, but he gets mine and perhaps he might reflect on my amendment and come up with a superior wording, given the superior intelligence that works for him. Any time the Opposition seeks to bring something forward and the Minister gets the point, there is at least a technical reason it cannot be implemented. I am willing to reflect on this issue and come back to it on Report Stage because it would be worthwhile to give serious recognition to collective agreements. While they are recognised, statutes and other matters come ahead of them in the context of redeployment. I worry about this for the future in terms of collective agreements. The statute does not set out a framework for redeployment, rather it sets out a framework for compulsory redeployment. It should be broader than compulsory redeployment and should reflect what is agreed to in practice.

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

I might be able to give some comfort to the Senator and obviate the need to repeat ourselves on Report Stage. The amendment looked like a sensible proposal, but given the role and functions conferred on the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform in the reform of public services generally and the allocation of human resources and finances in that context, the broader policy of the Minister on theses issues objectively must be given precedence over collective agreements. The Senator may be Minister at a future date or have control over public sector pay policy and there might be issues on which he needs to have that statutory right and authority. We cannot include in statute an impediment to the Government's right to govern.

Thomas Byrne (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It would be worthwhile for the Minister to confirm that there is nothing in the legislation to override the Haddington Road agreement in practice. Collective agreements are recognised by the Government and despite the fact that a procedure for compulsory redeployment is being provided for, which I accept may be needed, the practice has always been that the first to go leave on a voluntary basis. A total of 10,000 public servants moved on a voluntary basis and more would have moved had the decentralisation programme gone ahead, particularly to Drogheda. Loads of people were queuing up to move there, as Senator D'Arcy will be aware. The Department of Social Protection had a queue a mile long. I would like the Minister to comment on this.

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

The Minister's statutory right needs to be preserved, with which the Senator will not disagree, but I want to be crystal clear that the Haddington Road agreement will be fully protected by the Government and it is fully protected in this legislation. However, we are crafting a law that will have duration well beyond 2016, the expiry date of the agreement. There might be cases in which the Minister might well need to act in preserving the public purse or dealing with other issues and it must be the right of the Minister who has statutory responsibility for the public service and pay to have that authority ultimately. However, I assure the Senator and the House that the Haddington Road agreement and all other collective agreements will be fully protected by the Government.

I should not be drawn into discussing the notion of decentralisation which affected my own constituency. The Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government was supposed to move wholly to Wexford, abandoning the Custom House. We got a few hundred people and there were many volunteers, but the problem was that they were not all from that Department. The policy which we terminated as soon we entered government broke the collective memory and wisdom of Departments because new Departments were created. The Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government was to be formed with anybody who wished to transfer to Wexford, while the Department of Justice and Equality was to be formed by those who wished to move to another location. That was crazy. The corporate memory and ability of Departments to carry out their functions would have been hugely damaged by that policy. However, that debate is over.

Thomas Byrne (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There is no provision for a redeployment appeals process. Has the Minister considered this issue, given that appeals processes are provided for in collective agreements? It would be sensible to provide for one.

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

I am not aware of a difficulty arising in the significant redeployment of staff to date. I do not want to create a structure that will be so cumbersome that it will become unworkable. Everybody who has moved, as Senator Denis Landy said, volunteered to do so. They might not have been enthusiastic about it and might have preferred to stay put, but when agencies are closed or downsized, it is important to have flexibility for people to preserve their jobs and terms and conditions. All of this is fully vindicated in the process we have set down. I do not know whether there is a need to have another tier above this.

Thomas Byrne (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I did not table an amendment on this issue, but it is worth considering. The original Croke Park agreement provided for an appeals process and stated, "Where a staff member wishes to appeal a redeployment decision, such an appeal will be managed by an agreed adjudicator who will reach a decision within the terms of the scheme within 21 days". An appeals process should be a basic provision where there is compulsory redeployment. It does not have to be administratively burdensome, but it would give staff protection if they are compulsorily designated for redeployment. This will not arise in the context of the Haddington Road agreement, but we are including in statute something that will give the PAS huge power to move staff around. While the PAS needs that power, employees need some level of protection.

One protection is that redeployment would first be sought or advertised on a voluntary basis. The 10,000 staff who left did so voluntarily. There is an element that goes beyond that in the sense that there was no statutory basis. Perhaps the process was not entirely voluntary but there was an appeals process. There should be a very simple appeals process set out in the legislation to allow for a second look without turning the matter into an administrative burden or a gold-mining exercise or money-spinner, as occurred with certain appeals processes. Essentially, the Public Appointments Service could just designate somebody having considered the matters that arise. Perhaps there needs to be more provision for that.

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

There is a slight misunderstanding of the purpose of the legislation. I have two points to raise on this matter. The Deputy quoted provisions in the Croke Park agreement on the appeals mechanism pertaining to redeployment. There is a mirroring section in the Haddington Road agreement and that will be fully respected, but the Deputy has acknowledged that this will not arise in the context of that agreement between now and 2016. The fundamental issue is that this Bill is to make statutory provision for redeployment, not to force redeployment; that is the difference. It is to allow for redeployment to be legally undertaken and to have a proper structure for this to occur through the Public Appointments Service, respecting the agreements made on foot of the Haddington Road agreement for the coming years.

Thomas Byrne (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister is playing with words slightly. Section 57B of the original Act states:

(1) The Public Appointments Service may designate an employee […] for redeployment […].
(2) Where a person who is designated under subsection (1) holds a position by virtue of a contract that is one for a definite period, he or she shall, on the redeployment day, be redeployed to such position […].

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

It is not the case. The Bill permits flexibility to be exercised. The purpose of this simple and technical Bill is to remove the legal impediments that currently prevent reassignment across organisations other than by way of secondment. For example, when FÁS moved into the Department of Social Protection, its employees were technically seconded. FÁS was not legally moved. Temporary secondment is not a proper way of restructuring the public service. This legislation is an enabler to allow the restructuring to be made permanent, such that the employees of FÁS, for example, will be de facto employees of the Department of Social Protection.

Where redeployment is not an option, there may be circumstances in which voluntary redundancy is an option. That has happened. In no circumstances are we looking towards compulsory redundancy. That is an important point to make. The legislation is not to force or require people to be redeployed but to enable redeployment to occur on a statutory basis.

Denis O'Donovan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

When is it proposed to take Report Stage?

Tom Shehan (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Next Tuesday.

Pat O'Neill (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

When is it proposed to sit again?

Caít Keane (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

At 10.30 a.m. tomorrow morning.