John Perry
Question:69 Mr. Perry asked the Minister for Finance the number of meetings which he has had with the decentralisation implementation group; and the subject of these meetings. [19383/06]
Other Questions.
Decentralisation Programme.
When the decentralisation programme was announced, the then Minister for Finance appointed a decentralisation implementation group to drive the process forward. In March, July and November of 2004 and June 2005, the group published progress reports on the implementation of the programme. Each of these reports was formally submitted either to me or my predecessor before being considered by the Government. The Government approved the recommendations contained in these reports.
I met the current chair of the group last July to receive an update on the main issues arising in the implementation of the programme. In addition, I understand that my predecessor met the former chair of the group in March 2004 and I also met the former chair of the group in November 2004.
The group has held a series of meetings with Secretaries General of Departments involved in the programme to discuss the planning framework in place, to assess progress to date and to hear about the challenges arising and steps proposed to address them. Following this round of discussions, the group is meeting the chief executives of a number of State agencies. I intend to meet the chairman of the decentralisation implementation group shortly to receive an update on the outcome of these meetings.
The Minister has not taken a hands-on interest in this if he only met the decentralisation implementation group once against a background in which the programme is falling asunder. Over 90% of the programme will not be delivered by the date at end of the year he has set. Since he took office, he has only bothered to meet the decentralisation implementation group once.
Why has the Minister not discussed with the implementation group the lack of options available to people in State agencies who opt to remain in Dublin? There is no position from the Department on what will be done with them. Why has the Minister not sought information from the implementation group about the serious loss of experience likely to occur because of the low take-up among staff in specialist areas? This means that if he pushes ahead with the programme, we will lose significant knowledge, corporate memory and experience. Do these issues not deserve much more attention from the Minister than appears evident from just one meeting since he took office?
I have been receiving reports from these groups. Unfortunately, Opposition Deputies often refuse to read them or do not acknowledge their existence when they make their assertions. Since last year, the Government has adopted the decentralisation implementation group recommendations on how we rephase the implementation of the programme. The suggestion that we will have 90% done is based on the implementation group's assessment which is based on ongoing discussions. Members of my Department continually brief me on the matter.
I met both the previous and current chairs of the implementation group once and I will meet the current chair again soon. It is not a question of him having to report to me every month on these matters. The implementation group has met on approximately 27 occasions. There are many industrial and human relations issues to be dealt with by independent officers. The implementation group has brought forward three or four reports on these matters.
With regard to staff vacancies, there has not been a tradition of cross-departmental transfer within the State agency sector, unlike the Civil Service which facilitated successful implementation of previous decentralisation programmes. We need to deal with this and need a negotiation breakthrough to ensure it happens. We are not at that point yet because the unions representing agencies have been of the view that this level of co-operation and detailed negotiation should not take place yet.
Is it not the case that the Minister is corralling them only to meet the specific executives within their agencies although he acknowledges there has been no tradition of State agencies having these other opportunities to move on? He is corralling the trade unions into a negotiating position where they cannot break into the wider solutions the Minister says he seeks.
No, we must first get agreement with the trade unions that the promotions policy will be affected by the reality of decentralisation when it takes place. That is the first matter of principle on which we must get agreement. There is work ongoing in the Labour Relations Commission with regard to a specific and very prominent State agency, but were we to get agreement on that and resolve the difficulty, it would have a general application. We must find a formula that will enable us to get down to detailed discussions beyond that basic principle. It is an issue that needs to be negotiated and discussed.
The Department has not put forward any proposal.
The Deputy does not have a grip on the full situation.
I have met the union.
The unions were meeting my people, the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment and FÁS people up to the early hours this morning. Did the Deputy meet them this morning?
No. Perhaps the Minister could tell the House what he is putting forward.
Given the sensitivity of the discussions and the efforts we are making to resolve the difficulty, I am not going to negotiate in public in the House. I am trying to find a formula that will be acceptable to all the parties and will enable us to sit down and discuss the options we can provide for the future. Such a formula should balance the need for the decentralisation policy to proceed with the need to cater for those who want to stay in Dublin. We can contemplate certain choices and options, similar to those which are open to civil servants, in respect of those in the State agencies if we get agreement on the first point of principle. We have to get off the mark in that regard if we are to progress to proper discussions. Deputy Bruton asked me a specific question about the options which are available. Substantive discussions with the unions on those matters will best elucidate what those options are. We are not even in that position yet, however. Therefore, I reiterate that we need to use the industrial relations facility which is in place to ascertain whether we can make a breakthrough in respect of specific State agencies. The decentralisation programme, the rest of which the Deputies opposite are seeking to rubbish, is proceeding well. We already have 1,500——
We should go back to the core issue. This is a voluntary programme.
Yes, of course it is.
The Minister is expecting the trade unions, which are being corralled to deal with just one agency, to contemplate issues which have not been put on the table. If their members are told the decentralisation programme is voluntary and they have the right to remain in Dublin and continue to do their jobs there, how can these issues be resolved by the trade unions? The Minister is putting them in an impossible position.
Absolutely not.
It is a fiasco.
There is no question of putting anyone in an impossible position.
It is a fiasco.
I see that another smoked salmon socialist is throwing in a few comments from the back benches.
He is going to Cuba.
There are some chives coming down from the back benches.
May I ask the Minister to give his response to a recent announcement——
Does Deputy Bruton not require an answer?
——by the Minister of State with responsibility for children——
I thought I was answering Deputy Bruton's questions.
——about the location of the new offices of the Office of the Minister for Children? I invite Members to guess where this new Government department will be located. When decentralisation programmes were successfully pursued by other Governments, including Governments in which the Labour Party successfully took part, there was a principle that new institutions being created should be decentralised. I refer to the decentralisation of the Environmental Protection Agency to County Wexford and the computerised driver licensing system to County Clare, for example. Where do Deputies think the prototype new Office of the Minister for Children will be decentralised to, according to an answer that was given by the Minister of State with responsibility for children the other day? Will the Minister comment on the decision to locate the office in Bishop's Square, Redmond's Hill, Dublin 2? Does he agree that this is a farce?
What is a farce is having to listen to Opposition Deputies talking out of both sides of their mouths.
Can the decision to locate a new department in Dublin 2 be deemed to be decentralisation?
I have yet to hear one of them——
It is a farce.
I will ask every Opposition Member to name a town or a county——
The Opposition is supposed to be asking the questions.
——to which Government offices should not be decentralised.
Questions can only be asked by Deputies on this side of the House.
It smacks of hypocrisy that the Opposition is saying "We are in favour of it but".
The Minister should ask the Taoiseach the same question.
Let us get down to specifics.
He is telling people on the doorsteps——
I am tired of answering parliamentary questions from every Labour Party Deputy in the country asking when the decentralised offices will come to their local areas.
How about Birr?
The Taoiseach acknowledges——
I wish to get back to the real issue.
Are there any jobs for Marino?
The Government said it would have delivered all these jobs by the end of this year.
No.
They are all for Dublin 2.
It is supposed to have it all done in six months' time.
That is not the situation——
That is what the Government is saying.
——and the Deputy knows it is not.
That is what the Minister's predecessor said.
The decentralisation——
He said the Government's reputation would be on the line if it did not do it.
——implementation group, about which the Deputy has spoken fondly, said in 2005 that the ambitious nature of this programme, which will be implemented on a phased basis, means that it will require time. The Opposition continues to ignore the point, which was accepted by the Government, that it will require time. Some 1,500 civil servants — 20% of the Civil Service part of the programme — are already in new positions and are ready to move to new locations. The specific issues which have been raised in respect of State agencies will be difficult to resolve because there is no tradition of transfer between such agencies, which makes this programme different from past programmes of decentralisation. That does not detract from the work that is being done, such as the identification of locations and the acquisition of properties. As we speak, more and more people are applying to participate in the decentralisation programme. The skills mix will also have to be dealt with.
As I have said previously, in response to the suggestion that there will be a loss of corporate knowledge if large numbers of public servants are located in the countryside, we should look at what happened when a section of the Revenue Commissioners was relocated to Limerick. Just 25% of those who were working in the Collector-General's office moved to Limerick, but the relocation was used as a means of introducing new work practices, more efficiency and more effectiveness, which was one of the terms of reference of the decentralisation implementation group in this instance.
Why is the Office of the Minister for Children being located in Dublin 2?
There is continuous negative commentary and political dishonesty on the part of members of the Opposition.
Can the Minister answer that?
Front Bench spokespersons are saying one thing and backbenchers are saying everything else locally.
Why is it being located in Dublin 2?
It is time for them to call meetings of their parliamentary parties to sort themselves out.
Why is it going to Dublin 2?
They need to decide whether they are in favour of decentralisation or against it.
What about Marino?
Written Answers follow Adjournment Debate.