Enda Kenny
Question:1 Deputy Enda Kenny asked the Taoiseach the number of staff who have applied for relocation under the decentralisation programme; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [29484/08]
Ceisteanna — Questions.
Decentralisation Programme.
Eamon Gilmore
Question:2 Deputy Eamon Gilmore asked the Taoiseach the number of members of staff of his Department who have applied for relocation under the Government’s decentralisation programme; the numbers who have relocated; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [32377/08]
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin
Question:3 Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach the way the decentralisation programme affects his Department in terms of staff relocation; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [37595/08]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 to 3, inclusive, together.
Of the 184 authorised core staffing complement currently serving in my Department, 32 have applied through the central applications facility to relocate under the decentralisation programme.
The breakdown by grade is: principal officer, two; assistant principal, nine; higher executive officer, five; administrative officer, four; executive officer, four; staff officer, two; and clerical officer, six. Some 22 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.
There are at least 13 locations where advance contingents have moved and where permanent accommodation is neither affordable nor available, and this is to be reviewed in 2011. Is it intended that those staff who have moved on a contingency basis are now to return to Dublin because the situation is completely in limbo or will they remain isolated from the rest of their Departments? As this will not be reviewed until 2011, is it not a cause of some concern to the Taoiseach that this will result in fragmentation within the Department?
A total of 35 locations are pending a review in 2011. What will happen to the sites that are required by the Departments under the decentralisation programme? Will they just sit there, depending on whether property prices go up or down, or what does the Government intend to do? Given that the former Minister for Finance, Mr. McCreevy, announced from the Taoiseach's chair in the Chamber that he was going to move 10,000 public servants over three years to 53 locations, this has not worked out the way the Government intended. Mr. McCreevy said that the Government should be judged on its success in achieving its targets, but it is clear that this is one target that has not been met.
I remind Deputy Kenny that the question relates to the Taoiseach's office. The Minister for Finance is the line Minister for the decentralisation process.
I thought very carefully about it, Ceann Comhairle. The first question asks about the number of staff who have applied for relocation under the decentralisation programme. It does not mention the Taoiseach's Department.
It was a mistake.
It is not a mistake; it is a very deliberate question. Even the Ceann Comhairle, with all his experience, must have seen that.
I must not have.
The decentralisation implementation group has made a number of reports since this was first announced, such as outlining the expected timescales involved. Of the 2,500 staff already relocated, a further 3,500 will complete relocation as a result of the most recent Government decision with, as the Deputy said, subsequent decisions deferred until 2011.
The Office of Public Works has expended approximately €250 million gross up to the end of September 2008 on the property aspects of the programme. The Deputy may wish to note that the total income from property disposed of in Dublin between January 2004 and December 2007 was €355.9 million, leaving a surplus of €105.9 million between what has been purchased and what has been disposed of. In addition, property valued at €75 million was transferred to the affordable homes partnership, which would be a further surplus were it sold on privately to other bodies. I am advised the OPW has agreed joint venture redevelopment schemes with a minimum value of approximately €125 million up to the end of 2007. As expected, non-property costs have been increasing since the beginning of 2007 as more advance accommodation is in place. Staff training has increased and actual moves have taken place. There is an overall surplus in terms of what has been disposed of and what will be redeveloped as a result of relocation compared to the cost of providing the sites and the locations referred to.
With regard to those sites which will not be proceeded with in this phase but will be considered in light of budgetary concerns in 2011, they will remain under the management of the Office of Public Works which will continue to manage the State's property portfolio as is its remit. Regarding those advance parties which have moved to locations, those staff who indicated an intention to relocate will remain in place and move to permanent accommodation under the programme.
If the 2011 review were to recommend not going ahead with the decentralisation programme in a particular town, will that mean that the contingency group in the town, which has lived semi-permanently there, will be transferred back to Dublin?
Does the Taoiseach agree the decentralisation programme as envisaged by the Government has failed? The Taoiseach knows from his town's experience, and I from mine, that where a well-planned decentralisation programme has operated, it has been a success. For example, I understand the local government appointments commission was to be decentralised to Clonakilty. There is no railway line to the town which would affect every applicant going for interview. Some of the locations chosen by the then Minister for Finance, Charlie McCreevy, were not suitable for the type of office to be decentralised. A well-planned and well-managed decentralisation programme is always of benefit, depending on the level at which it is operated.
Does the Taoiseach accept the programme, as outlined by the then Minister for Finance, Charlie McCreevy, has failed? I know, a Cheann Comhairle, you were interested in having the Department of Arts, Sport and Tourism and the Irish Sports Council decentralised to Killarney — a fine town with which I have some acquaintance. Recently, two public servants left Killarney for Dublin to assist in answering questions for the Minister for Arts, Sport and Tourism. The train, however, broke down before reaching Mallow. Between taxis and other trains and lack of mobile telephone coverage, the two public servants never arrived to Dublin on the day. Where Ministers require back-up in the Houses or elsewhere, the decentralisation process has not worked well in their favour.
The Taoiseach's predecessor, Deputy Bertie Ahern, spoke about Microsoft and having video links across the country. As the Taoiseach knows this requires full width broadband which is not available in many of the decentralisation programme locations. Does the Taoiseach accept the programme has failed in reaching its set targets? Is he serious about a review in 2011, as some time before a general election would not normally be in the offing?
Deputy Kenny, unfortunately, is not a supporter of the programme. In this phase of the programme, over 6,000 public and civil servants will be relocated. Over 14,000 public and civil servants applied to the Central Applications Facility, which highlights a significant demand. The programme and relocation must also fit in with the proper management and skills sets that are required in the various organisations which are being administratively relocated. I do not agree with the characterisation that it has not been a success. As Deputy Kenny said, he cannot indicate any location where it has not been a success and completed. Speak to any staff in decentralised offices——
This programme sought to have 10,000 public and civil servants moved.
The programme was the most ambitious ever devised in the State. It aimed to include not only those Departments which had a tradition of decentralisation and interoperability but also the wider public service and agencies in which these traditions did not exist.
While industrial relations issues have arisen in some agencies, up to 525 people from the agencies in question have relocated. The programme has to respect industrial relations processes and be achieved in a planned and proper way, which is the case. By the end of 2010, up to 6,000 public and civil servants will have relocated. Some 8,000 civil and public servants are retraining for working in the Departments to which they intend to relocate.
It is working its way through, more slowly than was originally targeted, which was very ambitious. It was always a voluntary scheme. It must abide by and respect industrial relations processes. Citing some extreme anecdote or suggesting there is a problem in one case on one particular day is not a fair characterisation of the fact that the decentralisation schemes in general — this one and previous ones that were less ambitious — have worked and are working. Of course, it is down to the quality of management and leadership in these locations to ensure the overall work and focus of the Department are maintained and that the output and professionalism required are provided.
As a concept it is a success but this programme is not.
I do not accept that. There are 2,500 relocations, which is in excess of previous schemes.
These are from around the country, from the provinces.
Some are.
The vast majority.
Let us be clear about this. The decentralisation programme is available to everyone. If it is characterised as an administrative relocation, people from all parts of the country who work in the public service and may wish to get closer to home are entitled to apply in the same way as everyone else. The important point is that the posts that would have been created within the Dublin area in non-decentralised mode through retirement or promotion are decentralised. If someone relocates from one destination to another outside Dublin, that vacancy can be taken up by someone who wishes to relocate from Dublin.
The then Minister, Charlie McCreevy, promised 10,000 people would move from Dublin in three years to 53 locations.
No, let us be fair. He indicated the hope that 10,000 would relocate in three years. It was clear once we got into the IR process that this would not be possible. The decentralisation implementation group has produced four reports since that Budget Statement outlining why the timelines must change to take account of the various requirements of the situation in terms of obtaining suitable sites and getting building going.
He promised 10,000 on the first day.
That is clearly set out by the decentralisation implementation group, the report of which was adopted by the Government. We have moved on in terms of timelines. We are stating that by the end of 2010, as we approach the review in 2011, the decentralisation implementation group expects 6,000 to be relocated at that stage. That is a fair achievement in any terms.
What about Parlon country?
After announcing the decentralisation package, the former Minister, Charlie McCreevy, said that if the Government had not managed to move 10,000 public servants out of Dublin in the decentralisation process by the end of 2006, the Government would not deserve to be re-elected. Of the 2,500 who have been relocated to date, how many are from Dublin? Does the Taoiseach think the scheme is working in practice when he examines the detail? Of 50 Revenue Commissioners staff who were transferred to Newcastle West, just two were from Dublin. Of 54 Revenue Commissioners staff who were transferred to Kilrush, just six were from Dublin. Of 49 Revenue Commissioners staff who were transferred to Listowel, just six were from Dublin. How many of the 2,500 staff relocated were moved from Dublin?
The Taoiseach says that the State has spent €250 million acquiring property. Can he clarify that this sum is for the purchase of property alone or whether, in addition to that sum, there are costs arising from the rental of property? If so, can he state the annual cost of renting property for decentralised State offices? In respect of property disposed of in Dublin, can he say if all of it arises from offices that have been decentralised or if it is due to any other reason? He may not have the breakdown of the locations. I was going to ask him who was the unsuccessful bidder but I thought that might be stretching it. I appreciate the Taoiseach may not have the breakdown of the locations but could he circulate to us later a breakdown of the lists of properties acquired and the lists of those disposed of?
The Deputy will appreciate that the detail of that would be best put to the line Minister concerned in terms of the Department of public service but I will try to answer the questions as best I can from my own prior experience and the information available to me.
On the question of numbers, and this was the point I was trying to make to Deputy Kenny, up to September 2008 over 13,000 civil and public servants had applied to the central applications facility to relocate under the programme and over 7,000 of those were Dublin based applicants. Given the nature of the programme and the timescales involved, individual circumstances are open to change and the application status may change as a result. It is not possible to calculate at this stage how many of the decentralising posts to be moved would be filled by people originally from Dublin.
The Deputy mentioned some decentralisation where a certain number of the total complement were from Dublin. Those people came from other Departments and locations and those other locations created vacancies, some of which may be taken up by Dublin based applicants who wish to move to whatever location was subsequently providing a vacancy as a result of the people referred to by the Deputy moving to the locations he mentioned. Therefore, I cannot give the Deputy the full picture. He referred to six or seven people who came to one place out of a total complement of approximately 53 and therefore the 48 would have come from various other locations, some of which would have been filled by Dublin based applicants also. That is the way it works.
The Deputy must recognise that everyone in the service has an entitlement to apply for relocation from whatever part of the country if they so wish but the ultimate objective would be that having decentralised, and when this process is complete, the numbers who would otherwise have been working in centralised offices will be reduced by the number in the decentralised offices. While people are being accommodated to relocate, because it is a voluntary programme and everyone has an equal entitlement, the ultimate point is that the net number working in the civil and public service within Dublin will be reduced by the overall number in due course. That is the way the process will work and it is only logical and fair to point that out.
Regarding the question on the property issue, which I have outlined, some of the people who are relocating from Dublin would also be coming from rented accommodation within Dublin. Not all of the accommodation in Dublin is owned. In many cases, when one moves from rental accommodation, given Dublin property prices and prices in country areas, one is making a saving if one moves to some rental accommodation in a country area. I would enter that caveat in the first instance.
Approximately €17 million has been spent to date on the costs of renting and fitting out properties in advance party locations. Staff in such locations will remain in place or move to permanent accommodation under the programme. Of that €17 million, approximately €4 million has been spent to date by the Office of Public Works on the cost of renting and fitting out of mainly Civil Service properties in advance party locations where permanent accommodation has been deferred pending the review in 2011. Therefore, €13 million of the €17 million is in respect of rental accommodation, of which permanent accommodation will be provided in the course of the next few years, and people will move to that. A total of €4 million of the €17 million is in respect of people who are in rental accommodation about whom no arrangements for permanent accommodation have yet been made.
The overall point I am making on the property issue is that €250 million is expended in terms of acquiring properties. The total spend by the OPW, which is also involved in the building and contracting of the buildings as well, is €250 million gross up to the end of September 2008. In respect of property disposed of, it has received €355.9 million. It has also provided another €75 million worth of property to the affordable homes partnership, which can be put to the value of the €355.9 million, bringing the figure up to €430 million. It has estimated a further €125 million as the minimum value for joint venture redevelopment schemes it has agreed. This is for enhancing the value of some of the locations vacated as a result of the decentralisation programme.
I want to return to the numbers moving out of Dublin. The Taoiseach described very clearly for us that if one has a decentralisation to Kilrush, somebody might move there from Listowel, somebody might move from Carrick-on-Shannon to Listowel, somebody from Longford to Carrick-on-Shannon——
Or from Dublin. Deputy Gilmore can put a Dublin name in there somewhere. He does not have to make it very complicated.
I am getting to it. How many have moved from Dublin? The Taoiseach said 2,500 posts have been established at various locations around the country.
I do not have that figure.
Could the Taoiseach estimate it?
I will make inquiries about that.
I remind Deputy Gilmore that the detail of this is a question for the line Minister. The Minister for Finance has overall responsibility for the public service, as I outlined at the beginning.
The Taoiseach appears to know everything about this except the bottom line.
I cannot win with Deputy Gilmore.
The then Minister, former Deputy Charlie McCreevy, estimated 10,000 by the end of 2006, or the Government did not deserve to be re-elected. Now the Taoiseach cannot tell me the total number. It is probably little more than one tenth of the projected figure.
Omnipotence like infallibility is a rare gift.
One must have an orderly process where members of a service are entitled as a right to apply where a post arises.
We know all that.
Deputy Gilmore knows that better than most. He remembers that. That number of posts has been taken out of Dublin into the country areas in the locations decided upon. Were we not to have a decentralisation programme those posts would be filled within the Dublin area. One must relocate on the basis on an equal entitlement for everybody regardless of where they are from. The ultimate number of posts provided for in the service within the area before reform will obviously be that number fewer — if it is 6,000 it will be 6,000 less — because those posts are being moved. One cannot reapply for those posts in the Dublin area if they are being decentralised. That is the issue. Over time 6,000 fewer public service posts will be created in the Dublin area——
How many is it now?
It is 2,500 now with 3,500 ready to move.
That is the number that have jigged around.
It is not a question of jigging around.
It is.
Either one gives equal entitlement to people in the public service or one does not. There is no jigging around.
I am not arguing with that. How many fewer are there in Dublin?
I do not have that figure.
This is it.
The question was put down to my Department but it is not my Department's responsibility. I cannot win with Deputy Gilmore.
The last time the Taoiseach answered questions in the House on the Government's decentralisation programme he advised that 32 applicants in his Department sought to relocate under this programme. How many of these have been accommodated? Given the freeze on the decentralisation proposals in budget 2009, what number have not and will not be accommodated? Can the Taoiseach confirm there are applications in his Department that are on hold? In the Department of Finance listing of the status of the various decentralisation projects, the identified towns and the Departments designated for them, we note that a number of them are referred to as "advance party in place". That applies in the case of Cavan town, which is in my constituency. The Department's listing says that permanent accommodation in the town is "not currently affordable" and that the matter will be reviewed in 2011. What does an "advance party" consist of?
If the Deputy does not know——
What does it do?
The Deputy is putting his chin out there.
I am glad the Taoiseach enjoyed that.
The rising of the moon.
I am the right man to ask you.
Is the Deputy looking for advice?
I would like to ask about the Department's statement that accommodation in some decentralisation locations is "not currently affordable". When was the available accommodation in such locations costed? As property prices continue to fall, it seems to me that the excuse that has been offered — that accommodation is "not currently affordable" — may no longer apply. That proposition merits a complete re-examination. The Taoiseach has said that a review will take place in 2011. Will the Department of the Taoiseach be directly involved in that review? Will it be solely within the ambit of the various Departments, with an over-arching position being taken by the Department of Finance? Will the Department of the Taoiseach, and the Taoiseach himself, have a specific responsibility in respect of the review? Will there be any consultation with the Houses of the Oireachtas?
Decisions on the timing of further work on the implementation of the balance of the decentralisation programme are being deferred, pending the outcome of the 2011 review. That is a sensible and reasonable approach to adopt in light of recent budgetary developments. Some 22 of the 32 staff in my Department who applied to relocate have already been assigned to decentralised posts. It is obvious that the other ten officials are waiting to see if it will be possible for them to relocate.
Are they on hold as a result of the decision to suspend the programme?
I cannot say. I have not received that detail from the central applications facility. It is obvious that they are continuing to indicate an interest in relocating. The decentralisation implementation group will be in touch with them in due course, depending on whether a suitable post arises.
Advance parties are groups or complements of workers who go to locations where alternative accommodation has been provided, pending the commencement of the full decentralisation that is envisaged at such locations. Such parties are working well. In some cases, further members of staff can be relocated to the interim rented accommodation, if they so wish and if there is sufficient capacity there, as part of the advance party at that location, pending the finalisation of accommodation and other arrangements. As I have said, some advance parties are in locations where building work is proceeding. In some such cases, permanent accommodation will be provided during the current phase of the programme. In other cases, such as cases in which arrangements are not currently in train, there will be a deferral until 2011. People are continuing to work in such locations because they suit them better than their previous locations.
The inability of the Taoiseach to clarify the status of the remaining ten officials in his Department invites a further question. What is the status of the freeze on the decentralisation programme in budget 2009? Are the ten officials who want to be decentralised but are still in the Department of the Taoiseach continuing to be considered under the decentralisation programme? Where is the truth in all of this? Is the programme suspended or not? What is the current status of the programme? I thought it had been decided that the relocations were not proceeding. I wonder how that decision affects the remaining applicants in the Department of the Taoiseach.
With regard to the missive prepared by the Department of Finance when were these assessments carried out on the affordable accommodation on the list? Does the Taoiseach accept the price of property has reduced significantly over the past 18 months and, particularly, over the past 12 months? Is it not the case that many of these options are now more affordable? Will that be part of a brought forward review of the overall plans? With regard to the idea of waiting until 2011, is the project being abandoned?
No, it is not. The costs of the decentralisation programme will continue during the coming financial year and the following year as we complete the process of moving 3,500 people earmarked for relocation to the new areas as agreed. Various decentralisation projects are at different stages of development and they are moving to completion, depending on where they are in the process. They should be completed because many of the 3,500 people are in training posts and posts in parent Departments awaiting to relocate to the new locations and, therefore, that process should be completed.
Having moved the 6,000 staff, we will examine the budgetary situation in 2011 to establish to what extent we can then move to the next phase of the original proposal. That is required as a matter of budgetary realities. We made this decision now in order that we can plan for the proper and orderly relocation of 6,000 staff and move beyond that in 2011 when we can see what is the budgetary situation rather than proceeding across all aspects of the programme, given the current budgetary situation.
I refer again to the question of facilities for locations to which decentralisation was to take place. The Taoiseach's predecessor said on a number of occasions that an advantage of the decentralisation programme would be the ability to do business with Dublin from many locations around the country. Has he information in his brief as to how many of the 53 locations have full broadband width? It appears even if decentralisation took place, very few locations would be able to do business in the way envisaged. Has he information about capacity in the 53 locations laid out?
I remind Deputies again that the Minister for Finance has overall responsibility for the public service and issues such as this should be addressed to him. I do not know if the Taoiseach can be helpful.
I can. These 6,000 posts apply to 40 locations outside Dublin and the other 13 locations will come into play at another time. All these locations to my knowledge are working well. I have heard of no complaint locally from staff, those working to them or those supervising them. All of us know, as the Deputy mentioned, that when the process is completed, the people are in place and the arrangements are made, they will get on with business. There has been no indication of lower productivity and there may even be greater productivity because of the good work environments that are being created for these units in the new locations.
I have met people, as has the Deputy, who can get to work more easily without all the problems and stress that come with that and they are very happy in these locations. They are getting on with their business and people in responsible positions and positions of authority supervise that work. No one in the House has suggested their work is substandard or giving rise to reasons for matters to be brought to the floor of this House in respect of any of those responsibilities. To be fair, we should take from this that there is not the suggested disparity between the work in these locations and anywhere else in the system.
Of the 2,500 posts that have been decentralised, how many have been filled by the original post holder? How many of the post holders who did not move and are not now in the decentralised job have been re-accommodated in other parts of the service? How many are still floating around somewhere without being accommodated in a regular job?
That is a level of detail I do not have with me. A specific question to the Minister for Finance will elicit the information.
Are there any?
Any what?
If 2,500 people are moved——
I am only surmising. I do not have the information in front of me so I would not be able to answer accurately.
Does the Taoiseach believe there are any staff whose jobs have been moved? This was to be done on a voluntary basis and staff were given the option that if their job moved, they did not have to go with the job. Are there many people whose job has moved but who now do not have a job to do?
They would be redeployed to other duties in a non-decentralised location.
All of them?
The Deputy is asking me to speculate but I do not have that level of detail. A question to the Minister for Finance or to the decentralisation implementation group would probably give the Deputy more accurate information.
I am surprised it is not the type of question the Taoiseach would have asked himself at some stage.
I am not in charge of the decentralisation programme.
As I pointed out, the Minister for Finance has overall responsibility for the public service. We do not have time available to do justice to Question No. 4 so I propose to move on to Priority Questions to the Minister for Health and Children.