Enda Kenny
Question:1 Deputy Enda Kenny asked the Taoiseach when the National Security Committee will next meet; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [30243/10]
Ceisteanna — Questions
National Security Committee
Having regard to the confidential nature of the work of the National Security Committee, it would not be appropriate for me to disclose information about the dates of its meetings or its proceedings. The committee, which is chaired by the Secretary General to the Government, comprises representatives at the highest level from the Departments of Justice and Law Reform, Defence and Foreign Affairs, and the Garda Síochána and the Defence Forces. It is concerned with ensuring the Government and I are advised of high level security issues and the responses to them, but not operational security matters. The committee will continue to meet as required. As well as attending meetings, the members of the committee liaise on an ongoing basis to monitor developments which might have national security implications, particularly in the international arena.
It is becoming obvious there is an ease of access to the fraudulent use of Irish passports, a passport which has particular integrity and credibility in international relations. In February this year, it emerged eight Irish passports were used fraudulently in an assassination in Dubai. This month several other Irish passports, possibly up to six, were used as a part of a Russian spy ring in the US. The concern, which I am sure the National Security Committee will consider, is the extent to which these fraudulent abuses continue and how little the Irish authorities know about them. British passports were abused in exactly the same manner in the Dubai assassination scandal and their security was increased immediately. No such security enhancement took place to protect Irish passports.
Can we have a question, please Deputy?
I am coming to it. The Taoiseach may be aware the number of Irish passports reported as lost or stolen in 2008 was 36,264, 6.3% of the total issued in 2008.
Does the Deputy have a question?
The figure for 2009 was 33,214, 6% of total issued. These are staggering figures.
Has the National Security Committee considered the ease of access to the fraudulent and illegal abuse of Irish passports? Has the committee made a recommendation that security enhancements for the protection of Irish passports should be implemented? Has it considered the implications of such large numbers of passports being reported lost or stolen?
As I stated earlier, due to the nature of the committee's meetings, it is not appropriate to disclose the information concerning its meetings or any of its proceedings. This is a matter to be directed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs who has responsibility for the Passport Office. There has been a debate in the House on the specific instances referred to by the Deputy. Clearly this is an issue concerning older passports. The questions the Deputy has raised are ones that can be directed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs so that the information will be available to him.
While I do not want to raise details of the matters discussed by the national security committee, the consequences of what the committee does in this case should become clear. In other words, there should be an analysis of what extra security arrangements must be made to protect the integrity of the Irish passport system. We cannot have a situation in which forged Irish passports are being used, as happened in the assassination case in Dubai. In addition, a number of Irish passports were used illegally by a Russian spy ring in the United States.
In recent days, the American President announced intelligence findings concerning at least two parcels containing explosives that were detected en route from Yemen to the United States. One of them went through Great Britain.
The Deputy should put a question.
Some years ago, I raised a question here following reports that al-Qaeda cells were operating in this country. Given previous reports of terrorist personnel being located here, what is the Government's response to the fact that at least one of the recently discovered parcels was being sent to the USA through Great Britain? We have an interest in ensuring that freight passing through this country is screened properly. We must not have a situation where, for their own reasons, somebody presses a button on a mobile phone and a sim card explodes material. In the recent cases it was titanium in toner packages. This has serious implications for international freight activities, so I am sure the Taoiseach will convey that concern to the national security committee.
The gardaí are well aware of the international situation and the threat level involved. They are maintaining contacts with their international counterparts in this regard. The Government is determined to continue to take all necessary measures to deal with international terrorism. It will play a full part in the international efforts to counteract the threat.
As regards the specific issue raised by the Deputy, the discovery of two explosive devices on cargo aircraft bound for the United States is a very worrying development. These devices are believed to have originated in Yemen and were bound for addresses in Chicago. This bomb plot is a further indication of the ongoing threat from al-Qaeda-inspired militants.
The threat from international terrorist groups against Ireland is considered to be low. However, the situation is being monitored constantly by the Irish authorities.
The director-general of MI5 has said that there is a persistent rise in the ambition and activities of dissident groups on the island of Ireland. I know there is a very high level of co-operation between the PSNI and the Garda Síochána and between both Governments, which I fully support. More than likely, the identities of those concerned are known to the security forces. In that context, what is the Government's latest assessment of the level of dissident or treacherous activity by so-called republicans? What is the Government's analysis of the latest position?
Has the Taoiseach yet received a copy of the 24th report of the Independent Monitoring Commission, which is due out this month? The personnel dealing with those reports are fully acquainted with the facts as they happen on the ground.
I understand that report has come to hand recently, is being considered by Government and will be published in due course. Regarding the earlier point about dissident threats, as the Deputy has suggested there is unanimous support in the House for full co-operation between the Police Service of Northern Ireland, PSNI, and the Garda Síochána in these matters. The Chief Constable of the PSNI and the Garda Commissioner have confirmed that the level of co-ordination and co-operation is at an all-time high. As one would expect, they co-operate fully in these matters and the necessary resources are being applied to deal with those who would constitute a threat to the security of the State or to others in terms of paramilitary activity or paramilitary intentions. These are operational matters that the Garda Commissioner and his people deal with on an ongoing basis.
In his reply the Taoiseach stated that due to the confidential nature of the work of the National Security Committee it would not be possible to give the dates, frequency and so on of the meetings of the committee and I understand this. However, given the increased vigilance which is now being applied both in the United States and the United Kingdom with regard to the potential for and possibility of acts of international terrorism, has there been any increase in the frequency of meetings of the National Security Committee or in its work? Does the Taoiseach hold a view on the statements made in recent days by the British Home Secretary and Prime Minister, especially with regard to freight and flights from Yemen to the UK, where, as I understand it, a ban has been placed on freight from Yemen? Has any consideration been given to the source of freight entering Ireland or to any implications for security or for the shipment of freight through Ireland, especially through Irish airports? Has there been any increase in the deployment of gardaí to deal with the evidence of an increased threat from dissident republicans?
Regarding the third question, as the Deputy is aware these are operational matters. The Commissioner deploys resources as required and he does not communicate on an ongoing basis as to what resources are being deployed for obvious reasons and for fear that people might regard that as increasing the possibility of abduction or the possibility of being found to be doing things they should not be doing. These are operational matters with which the Commissioner deals all the time and resources are applied as required. The Deputy will be aware generally that the security services in Ireland are working very closely to seek to have these people thwarted in any of their activities or planning.
Regarding the question of cargo, as a result of what happened in recent days and the implications if any in Ireland, it is a matter in the first instance for my colleague the Minister for Transport. All Irish airports with regular commercial flights are required to comply with the requirements of the EU regulations on aviation security and the national civil aviation security programme. Aviation security practices and procedures implemented at Irish airports, including those related to cargo, conform to EU common rules and to the highest standards internationally. These practices and procedures are subject to monitoring by the Department of Transport and are also the subject of periodic reviews by international organisations such as the EU Commission and the International Civil Aviation Organisation.
It is not the practice of the Minister to comment on specific security measures currently in place or that may be implemented at Irish airports or on monitoring activities carried out by his Department. Aviation security arrangements at Irish airports are kept under continuous review by the Department of Transport and the National Civil Aviation Security Committee, which is chaired by a senior official from that Department. The committee comprises representatives of Departments, the State and regional airports, airlines, the Garda Síochána, the Defence Forces, Customs and Excise, An Post, the Irish Aviation Authority and the Irish Airline Pilots' Association. Everyone must take cognisance of these worrying developments and must liaise with the various international organisations with whom they normally deal in order to put in place, if required, any further scrutiny advisable in the circumstances.
I appreciate that the Taoiseach cannot go into great detail with regard to levels of security and police co-operation on these matters. In respect of the increased potential for acts of international terrorism and with regard to the increase in dissident activity, has there been an increase in the level of political contact between Ministers here and in Britain? Has there been an increase in political contact at a European level with a view to addressing these threats?
I am not specifically aware there has been ministerial contact in recent days in respect of what happened but there has been official contact. Reviews are immediately put in place when something as serious as this happens. There are procedures and protocols under various international conventions. These kick in very quickly in light of the sensitivity of the aviation industry to issues such as this. Ireland is in compliance with these and is an active participant in them.
Can the Taoiseach advise if it is within the scope of the national security committee to consider measures such as the further civilianising of the clerical and administrative roles within the Garda Síochána in order to maximise the release of trained officers to various policing responsibilities directly within the community and in any of the contexts described? If it is within the scope, has it been given serious consideration? Does the Taoiseach expect further action will be taken in that regard?
It is not the practice of the national security committee to discuss operational matters. The committee only deals with the question generally of what needs to be done with an issue that arises and what liaison is taking place. It is not a question of getting into detail about policy implementation on civilianisation and matters of that nature.
Is the Government happy there are no international terrorist cells operating in Ireland at the moment in so far as the national security committee is concerned?
As I stated in a previous reply, the assessment is that the threat of the use of Ireland for such purposes is regarded as low but that is not to say there is a sense of complacency or that there is not activity in surveillance and monitoring.
Decentralisation Programme
Enda Kenny
Question:2 Deputy Enda Kenny asked the 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
Question:3 Deputy Eamon Gilmore asked the 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
Question:4 Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach the status of the decentralisation programme in his Department; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [32337/10]
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.
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?
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.
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?
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——
My information is that there are a number of architects who do not want to move out of St. Stephen's Green.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.