Vol. 622 No. 4
29 Mr. McCormack asked the Minister for Finance if the issue of confining promotions to only persons willing to decentralise has been modified as a result of recent Labour Court hearings; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [24912/06]
106 Ms Burton asked the Minister for Finance the implications for the Governments general programme of decentralisation, particularly in relation to State bodies in view of the recent agreement reached between FÁS and its employees at the Labour Court; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [24946/06]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 29 and 106 together.
In the dispute at FÁS a Labour Relations Commission proposal has been accepted by both sides. The proposal provides for the parties to enter a process of discussion, facilitated by the LRC, on the arrangements to apply in respect of promotion in light of the relocation of FÁS head office to Birr. The process should conclude not later than two months from the date of the first meeting and any unresolved issues at that stage should be referred to the Labour Court.
Across the public service, recruitment and promotion practices generally are being managed in a way that facilitates the achievement of the decentralisation programme in an efficient manner. Agreement has been reached with the Civil Service unions representing general service staff that all interdepartmental promotions will be made on the basis of the appointee agreeing to move to a post in a decentralising unit, Department or office. In addition, any appointments from open competitions are being made on the same basis. Where an organisation is moving in full, all internal promotions will include a decentralisation condition in the 52 week period prior to the move. Where an organisation is moving in part, 50% of all internal promotions will include a decentralisation condition in the 52 week period prior to the move taking place. These arrangements allow for a proportion of all promotions arising in Civil Service general service posts in the normal course to have a decentralisation condition as was the case on previous occasions. Discussions are ongoing with the unions representing professional and technical staff in the Civil Service on this issue.
In the State agency sector, promotions must take account of the reality of decentralisation. The position in relation to the State agencies is more complex and the dispute at FÁS highlights some of those complexities. The Government has always said that this is a voluntary programme. Any staff member wishing to remain in Dublin will be accommodated with a public service job in Dublin. However, there is a need to balance the business needs of the organisation in furthering its relocation objective with the needs of staff remaining in Dublin. In these circumstances promotions policy must take account of the reality of decentralisation. It is my strong view that these issues can only be resolved through dialogue and negotiations.
I welcome the Minister's reply. In the context of voluntary negotiations, what is the Minister putting on the table for people in State agencies who opt to stay in Dublin? I understand that the Department of Finance, as the public service employer, has not offered any options to people who voluntarily want to remain in Dublin and whose contract is with the State agencies. These people have not been offered an alternative posting from the Minister's Department. Is it not extremely difficult for negotiations to occur when the key player, the public service employer, namely, the Minister, is not putting anything on the table?
Did the FÁS case not show that when the board of the company sought to push ahead by using promotions as lever, the unions rightly said it was not in the spirit of the programme and that it would have to be withdrawn? What is the strategy of Government moving forward for these State agencies because it is very important we retain the skills? If these agencies are to decentralise, they cannot do so on the basis of losing 80% to 90% of the key skills. It is good the Minister is talking about negotiations but we need to see the colour of his eyes in terms of what he will offer to those volunteer to remain in Dublin as many of these skilled people do.
As I said to the Deputy the last time we discussed this, there was a stand-off in which no discussions were taking place. These issues are now going through the industrial relations process and FÁS is the first organisation to do this. I want to leave it to the industrial relations process. It is not the norm for Government to discuss negotiations just beginning to identify areas in which we can move forward and to see if we can come up with a solution that will meet the requirements of the organisation in a way that does not undermine the basic requirements of having an effective decentralisation programme.
Does the Minister not have to spell out what "voluntary" means? He has said repeatedly decentralisation is voluntary. He needs to tell people in FÁS, Enterprise Ireland, the National Standards Authority of Ireland etc., what it means in terms of their options. They can then negotiate on the options on the table. I do not foresee the Minister putting——
The Deputy asks me to get into a high level of detail. The problem is that we have a stand-off whereby we have not been able to get down to the business of ascertaining the number of staff who want to move as distinct from those who have been told to stand back from the situation until they see where the industrial relations process is bringing them. We are moving to a situation beyond having people picket on the streets and into an industrial relations process which will allow the parties to discuss how we will proceed with this matter and what principles should apply. To be fair to both sides, they have found a formula that enables them to get into that sort of discussion. It would not help for me to raise issues on which I may have certain opinions before the IR process is allowed to proceed, as that would undermine the purpose of the discussions. Let us not have the IR——
It is not realistic for the Minister to regard himself as an outside interest. He is core to this process. It is his policy. He needs to create the framework.
The Deputy is aware of how this process works. As a former Minister for Enterprise and Employment, when a dispute or issue arose, he took the proper advice to stay out of the individual situation and let the parties sit down——
That is not the case in this instance. With respect, this is not a standard industrial dispute.
With respect, we are trying to proceed with an implementation of a programme which has these complexities attaching to it. There was a stand-off but an IR process is proceeding. The parties should be allowed to discuss those issues in the next two months. If the issues are unresolved, let them go to the Labour Court. We should await the recommendations that come from that process so we can chart a way forward. If the Deputy was on this side of the House, he would say exactly what I am saying to him in respect of any dispute or issue that required an IR input.
No, I would present the business case, the approach we need to take, the things we have to achieve and say why this is a good move and how to mitigate certain problems that arise. One sets out a strategic case and then the unions negotiate, knowing what is the strategic framework. However, while the Minister has talked about the process, he has no strategic framework within which the parties could have realistic negotiations.
With regard to another decentralisation issue, a statement made by the Minister of State, Deputy Conor Lenihan, when he was on safari in Africa, was quoted in The Irish Times. The report stated there was “legal doubt surrounding the status of contracted specialists”. The Minister of State added: “We are waiting in the train station at Heuston en route for Limerick because until that legal action — which may end up in the European Court — is resolved, it will make it very difficult for us to effect that change”. In ordinary English, that means the Minister of State responsible for overseas development was saying that because of legal and IR issues, decentralisation in the overseas development aid section of the Department of Foreign Affairs will be on the tracks at Heuston Station until the matter goes to the European Court. In the context of the Minister’s response to Deputy Bruton with regard to IR discussions, will the Minister explain how many other references to the European Court are in train, to quote the Minister of State, Deputy Conor Lenihan?
With regard to other State agencies experiencing labour relations difficulties in regard to the decentralisation programme, such as BIM and the Combat Poverty Agency, what impact are the Labour Court hearings having on those cases? Does the Minister accept that FÁS in particular was the worst agency to involve in this kind of situation, given that it was already a largely decentralised organisation and all the Government was doing was relocating its centralised component from Dublin to a new location?
Does the Minister believe that because of the Labour Court hearings, there is now established a clear distinction between the employees of agencies as against those who are civil servants employed within the Departments which were signalled for relocation? Does that not warrant a different approach across the board in regard to the agencies?
The decentralisation implementation group has identified early movers and bodies that can proceed with some degree of speed and in which one can see how the matter can be progressed in the context of property solutions and the staff being trained and transferred to other Departments. It is not a question of everything stopping until everything goes. Some bodies are less problematic and can proceed.
The decentralisation implementation group states candidly that we need a ground-breaking initiative with the State agencies to effect a decentralisation programme that will deliver the objectives and ambitions of the programme. We need staff who have not had a tradition of inter-agency transfer to come to that idea positively in terms of discussion and dialogue, so we can resolve any problems that arise.
In the absence of dialogue, there will not be a resolution because there has never been a tradition of interoperability of staff in the State agencies as there has been in the Civil Service. That tradition has been adopted and promoted by Civil Service unions on the basis that there is a significant demand from staff to move to these locations. The question is how one achieves the skillsets and the fit to meet the requirements of the situation, and what training and relocation issues are identified.
We always realised that this was not a simple matrix in which people asked why they were not getting from A to Z more quickly. Therefore, we need to use our IR process in the way it was used when the first decentralisation programme was initiated and there was resistance from certain parts of the service. At that time, we worked out solutions to some of the difficulties. Situations may arise where it will be more difficult to find solutions than in other situations but we will use the IR process to proceed because that is how every IR issue will be resolved, given the level of change that is envisaged.
With regard to the position of the ODA section, I am not aware of the detail of court cases or related issues. However, the Department of Foreign Affairs, its Secretary General and the staff who manage the ODA section are working to find how they can relocate to Limerick as quickly as possible. There may be staff who want to delay that process and will use whatever mechanism they can to do so.
I referred to a direct quote from the Minister of State.
Other Deputies have been able to listen to my response without interrupting. It is very irritating. I do not know why the Deputy keeps interrupting me.
A parallel agreement in respect of professional and technical grades similar to the general grades is being discussed. As I stated with regard to the State agency sector, promotions must take account of the reality of decentralisation. We must find a way by which that can find expression with each of the issues we are discussing. We have not yet achieved a resolution of these problems because we need the IR process to facilitate such a resolution. I am simply noting that those areas which have been identified by the decentralisation implementation group as being capable of being moved quickly are being moved. We hope that up to 20% of the general staff can be relocated by early 2008. In the meantime, we need to work the IR process to deal with some of the issues and problems that are being highlighted.
To deal with Deputy Ó Caoláin's point, there is a differentiation only to the extent that there is a tradition of interdepartmental transfer in the Civil Service which has not yet been replicated in the State agency sector but which will require to be replicated. The decentralisation implementation group is quite candid and upfront in this regard. We need a ground-breaking initiative and we hope that the experience derived from the current IR process at FÁS will encourage staff to understand that problems can be surmounted and issues need not be intractable if we can bring a certain creativity to the process, as happened when previous decentralisation programmes were initiated.
I recall the same line of argument being taken with regard to previous decentralisation programmes which were less ambitious than this programme. This process is very ambitious. It will require time and will not be done in the timescale that was originally suggested because that would have required full co-operation by everybody from the beginning, with none of the problems that now arise. The revised timescale has been set out by the implementation group, which is comprised of people with an expertise in this area, who have succeeded before and who are prepared to work with the union representatives to try to do so again.
It is not a "same size fits all" approach in every respect because of the differing approaches or background that attach to it. We will proceed as quickly as possible. I hope the IR process can help us overcome problems, as was the case with previous programmes.
Written Answers follow Adjournment Debate.
