As a group, we are grateful for the opportunity to share our experiences and the details of our work with the committee. In response to some of the frustration expressed earlier, we would be happy to establish an ongoing relationship with the joint committee and to report periodically in written or what other form members deem to be appropriate.
In a nutshell, our job is to oversee the implementation of the programme and to drive it forward with all of the bodies involved. By any standard, this is a very complex exercise. It involves the relocation of 10,000 jobs across the Civil Service and State agencies out of Dublin. I understand a journalist stated this morning that she would sooner receive a death sentence than be given this job. It is not that awesome — while difficult, it is not impossible.
Since its launch, much public commentary on the decentralisation programme has focused on its perceived impact on the staff of the organisations concerned, the people they serve and the public service as a whole. Concerns have been expressed that services delivered by the participating organisations will be imperilled by the relocation and consequent loss of experienced staff.
Balanced against this we have the experience of the past ten years of decentralisation which has been good and happy. In the presentations to this committee the Department of Social and Family Affairs and the Revenue Commissioners made it clear they suffered no diminution in service to their client groups as a consequence of decentralisation. While the current programme is much larger and its differences with previous projects make it more complex, it offers an opportunity to re-examine how things are done in the public service, make changes which facilitate decentralisation and modernise services. The Revenue Commissioners made a similar point before the committee when they noted that decentralisation had resulted in a value added outcome.
Having said this, we must address the various concerns voiced. We are sensitive to such concerns which feature strongly on our agenda. From the outset, it has been clear to the group that work on implementation of the decentralisation programme should be advanced under three broad headings — people, business and property. In the two reports we have delivered to the Government we have reported progress under these headings. Copies of both reports have been widely circulated and members will have received them and digested their contents. For this reason, I do not propose to elaborate on their detailed recommendations. I am glad to note, however, that all the recommendations we have made to facilitate the process have been accepted by the Government. In turn, we are working to ensure they are implemented in an orderly and sensitive manner.
In the implementation group's March 2004 report we stated our conviction that addressing people issues would be vital to the successful implementation of the programme. We remain strongly of this view which is central to our approach, not least because of the people intensive nature of the civil and public services. The work of the implementation group in this area takes place against the background of a voluntary programme with no redundancy or removal expenses and a Government commitment that those whose jobs are being relocated but wish to remain in Dublin will be offered alternative public service posts in Dublin. Therefore, the programme is strongly voluntary in nature.
As members heard in two previous representations, the overall response to the central applications facility, CAF, shows that significant numbers of staff are interested in participating in the programme. We are examining in detail these figures to determine how locations and the grades of applicants can be matched to meet the needs of each organisation.
I agree with the observation made at this committee and elsewhere that the response to date has been markedly different in terms of those working in the Civil Service and those employed in the wider public service — the State agencies. This should not come as a surprise, given that the Civil Service understands and has experience of decentralisation whereas this is not the case in the State agencies which have little tradition of or facility for inter-agency transfer. The CAF remains open for applications and will take steps to determine how we can help those still considering their options.
The implementation group is determined to ensure that as much assistance as possible is provided for those who plan to move. This includes areas such as training, child care facilities, assistance for partners seeking work in new locations, circumstances in which individuals may be responsible for caring for an elderly relative and so forth. We are working on these matters and will work closely with the people in question to try to establish precise barriers to movement.
While I am on the subject of people, the group is keenly aware that providing assistance and supports for those willing to relocate represents only one part of the picture. We recognise that another group of equally dedicated civil and public servants are not in a position to relocate from Dublin for a range of personal and other reasons. At the time of the announcement of the programme the Minister for Finance made clear the Government's commitment that all of those wishing to remain in Dublin would be offered alternative public service jobs in the capital. On behalf of the implementation group, I reinforce that commitment. We have made clear that arrangements will be put in place to allow staff whose jobs are being decentralised and opt not to move out of Dublin to be reassigned to other jobs in Dublin.
As the implementation group stated in its July report, the personal development needs of those remaining in Dublin are as important as the needs of those moving. They should, for example, be included in the training strategies we have asked to be prepared and reviewed on an ongoing basis. To put this in context, when this exercise is complete, roughly half of the 17,000 Civil Service posts will be located in Dublin. In addition, roughly half of Departments will be located there. This creates sufficient scope to deliver on career expectations and other matters for those who are not in a position to relocate. In the interim, however, we recognise the considerable uncertainty and insecurity this group are experiencing and consider it an important part of our work to address their needs. Those who have opted not to move are experiencing great uncertainty and although we have started to address this matter, much remains to be done.
The decentralisation programme raises many complex and sensitive industrial relations issues, including matters affecting recruitment, promotion and mobility which, as members will be aware, are extremely sensitive. At the behest of the trade unions, discussions on industrial relations aspects of the process are taking place through traditional channels. The implementation group takes a keen interest in developments and monitors progress in this regard through regular reports.
I will now address business issues and the implementation plans. As I stated, an ongoing theme in the commentary on the programme is that large-scale transfer of organisational headquarters outside Dublin will result in such a loss of expertise and efficiency that the organisations in question will no longer be able to adequately discharge their functions. The implementation group accepts this could be the outcome if these organisations were to take a purely passive role in the process and engage in no business planning to ensure the success of the relocation programme. One of the first tasks for the implementation group and the senior management of each participating organisation was to identify the challenges, risks and opportunities presented by the Government decision. Having identified these issues, the second task is to make timely, proactive plans to address them.
Since January this year, the implementation group has set about ensuring all affected organisations address the range of risks and challenges presented to them. In our first report we asked that each organisation prepare and submit to us a detailed implementation plan which would show how it proposed to meet the challenge of relocation. We asked that each plan take account of the organisation's review of business processes and service delivery methods. In particular, we stressed the need to include specific risk assessment and mitigation strategies. In our July report we indicated that the overall quality of the plans submitted to us was good and that we looked forward to the development of further versions of these plans as the organisations involved got more detailed information from the response to the CAF, on the property front and, finally, on Government decisions on phasing and timing.
As far as I am aware, almost all of these plans have been published and we have encouraged this practice. Some have been the subject of critical comment in the media. The view of the implementation group is that, in general, the plans represent a realistic assessment of the risks posed to the various organisations in carrying out the Government programme. The fact the plans identify difficulties does not mean the situation presents insurmountable obstacles. We are strongly of the view that a rigorous process of risk identification is the first vital and timely step towards formulating a risk mitigation strategy. In many cases risk mitigation is already included in the organisational plans. We reminded all organisations in our July report that the next version of plans should include clear risk mitigation strategies.
A major element in all the plans is appropriate training for new staff who will provide services from the new locations. Comprehensive planning is under way for this purpose and training is already under way at a number of locations. The cross-cutting issues identified in the individual plans are also being pursued, that is where issues arise which cross departmental boundaries.
The committee will be aware that the Civil Service and the wider public service have been engaged in an ongoing modernisation programme under the strategic management initiative. Our terms of reference refer to the need to align the modernisation and decentralisation programmes. Chapter 2 of our July report deals in some detail with the work that has been done, under the auspices of the SMI implementation group of Secretaries General, on the implications of a post-decentralised Civil Service. The overall objective is to ensure the delivery of joined-up Government does not suffer as a result of decentralisation. We are convinced this objective can be achieved and we will continue to liaise closely with the SMI implementation group in this regard.
The group's terms of reference charged us with developing the implementation plan on a basis which ensures that property being acquired at regional level is matched over time in cost terms by disposal of property currently held in the Dublin region. The property aspects of the programme are being managed by the Office of Public Works, with the exception of a very small number of State agencies that have chosen to manage their own property affairs. As committee members are probably aware, the OPW placed advertisements in the national press shortly after the Government decision seeking expressions of interest in providing property solutions at all of the locations. In excess of 700 expressions of interest were received and these proposals are at various stages of assessment and processing by the OPW. Property solutions have been agreed for seven locations and the assessment and acquisition process, including client consultation, is reaching a conclusion in the case of 16 other locations. The process will continue until property solutions are identified for all locations.
As indicated in our terms of reference, a big bang approach with all organisations moving at the same time was never envisaged. We consider that the most appropriate approach is likely to involve an initial tranche of moves comprising a group of organisations and locations, which I hope would involve a nice spread both in terms of geography and organisations.
The latest information from the CAF, together with information on property and issues arising from the individual implementation plans, will now be studied closely by the implementation group. Based on this work, we will submit our views on sequencing and timing of relocations to the Cabinet sub-committee on decentralisation later in the autumn. I cannot put an exact date on it. That is the next task to which we will devote our energy. The selection of organisations for inclusion in the first phase of moves will take account of all these issues.
A solid foundation has been put in place over the ten months the implementation group has been in existence, which will provide a basis for moving the programme forward. As a group we favour the widest possible consultation, through the appropriate fora, about how best to proceed with implementation of the programme.
I have tried to sketch out for the committee both the considerable amount of work which has already been undertaken by the group and the large body of work that still lies before us. It is impossible in such a short time to cover all of the issues on which this relocation programme touches but we will be glad to elaborate on any issue or answer any questions the committee may have. We look forward to an ongoing relationship with the committee.
