JOINT COMMITTEE ON FINANCE AND THE PUBLIC SERVICE debate -
Wednesday, 13 Dec 2006

Decentralisation Programme: Presentation.

Chairman

The joint committee will move on to the third item on the agenda, namely, a discussion on the progress of public service decentralisation with the decentralisation implementation group, DIG. The joint committee is joined by Mr. Finbarr Flood, chairman of the decentralisation implementation group, Michael Errity, assistant secretary, and Áine Stapleton, principal officer, from the Department of Finance, and Paul Molloy and Brian Allen, principal officers from the Office of Public Works. On behalf of the members, I welcome them before the committee and thank them for their attendance.

Before discussion begins, I advise those present that while comments of members are protected by parliamentary privilege, those of visitors are not. Members should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the committee or Houses. We will commence proceedings with a short presentation by Mr. Flood, which will be followed by an open discussion between the witnesses and members of the Opposition and Government parties.

Mr. Finbarr Flood

I thank the joint committee for its invitation to appear before it to discuss decentralisation. It is an opportunity to provide a balance of good news and the issues that cause difficulties. I hope we will provide members with a good and comprehensive overview as to what is happening with regard to decentralisation.

As members will be aware, the DIG recently submitted a progress report on decentralisation to the Minister for Finance. Perhaps somewhat surprisingly, in light of some of the public commentary on the programme, I am happy to report to the committee the assessment of the DIG that the programme has been progressing satisfactorily.

Last year, I mentioned to the committee that one point which struck me most forcefully in taking on this role was the scale and complexity of the task. It touches on many of our most important public services and involves the relocation of more than 50 organisations, including the ministerial offices and headquarters of eight Departments.

In a substantial programme of change, the most important first step is to build up a cohort of expertise in each organisation. To this end I am pleased to inform the joint committee that at the end of November 2006, more than 2,300 staff had been assigned to decentralising posts. They are currently in place or are being trained in advance of decentralisation to a new location, as soon as accommodation becomes available.

The actual moves to the new locations are well under way at this stage. Decentralising organisations have established a presence in 15 new locations. By early next year, the number of decentralised staff in the new locations will have grown to more than 1,000 in approximately 20 towns nationwide. Building on this experience, the DIG is confident that public services will be delivered from 32 of the decentralisation towns and approximately 2,000 staff will have been transferred by the end of next year. Further large movement in 2008 and 2009 will follow.

Advance moves are an important element of the phased approach being followed. From a business perspective, they allow for the staffing of complete business units for early relocation and facilitate the smooth transfer of the organisation's business. I assure members that pressures for early moves are emerging from within the system. It is clear that once staff members make the decision to relocate, they wish to make the move as quickly as possible. In recent visits to new locations, I have heard first-hand from staff how much their lifestyles have improved as a result of the change. Improved quality of life and the major cutback in travel time to and from work are dominant themes.

I wish to mention two general points. First, to my dismay, the focus of much commentary on the decentralisation programme tends to be on deadlines. My group was established to put a measured and reasonable timeframe in place to achieve delivery of the programme. To be clear, my focus is not how speedily this can be achieved, but how well. This implies sensible and measured planning, rather than delay. Second, much of the commentary on the programme tends to miss its inherent complexity. The programme has three main components whereby Civil Service general service grades, professional and technical grades and State agency employees account for approximately 60%, 10% and 22%, respectively, of the posts being relocated. The balance of 8% includes Defence Forces and Garda personnel.

The programme does not simply concern moving public services. It has a fundamental impact on the career choices and expectation of the staff in the organisations concerned. Consequently, we require both a successful business outcome and an outcome that meets the needs of the staff involved, including those who wish to relocate and those who opt to remain in Dublin. A year has elapsed since I last appeared before the joint committee and I remain confident the public service will deliver this programme well in a considered, sensible and sensitive manner.

In the past 12 months, the group has maintained close contact with decentralising organisations and has held a series of meetings with Secretaries General of decentralising Civil Service organisations. The group is impressed by the professional and business-like approach being taken by Departments and offices in respect of assessing the risks involved and the adoption of appropriate measures to manage business risk.

The property aspects of the programme are an indicator both of the scale of this programme and the progress achieved to date. Overall, the programme of site identification and acquisition is progressing satisfactorily. Negotiations on property acquisition have been completed or significantly advanced by the Office of Public Works in 36 locations throughout the country. Given the importance to the public of the range of policy and service areas being decentralised, the priority is to ensure the smooth transition of businesses to their new locations. The DIG must manage the phasing of the moves to meet that overriding objective. Everyone agrees the initial timescale mooted for the decentralisation programme was ambitious. The group's June 2005 report provided aggressive construction start and completion dates. These were designed to further the momentum of the programme through the earliest possible identification and acquisition of property solutions across the locations.

The Office of Public Works conducts an ongoing review of the property timeframes for permanent accommodation and has provided an updated schedule of the likely availability of accommodation. This takes account of experience to date in respect of timeframes for property selection and acquisition, brief and design issues, tendering periods, planning issues and contractual arrangements.

The revised schedule will allow for the planned movement of up to 6,800 staff in the next three years in line with the target set out in June 2005. The delivery time for some locations, owing to the construction timetable on buildings, will be later than originally projected, leading to a greater concentration of moves in 2009 rather than in 2008.

One of the principal implementation challenges is the need to look after the interests of staff who wish to remain in Dublin. Staff will continue to come on stream in Dublin on a phased basis. This phasing allows the absorption of Dublin staff into vacant posts to be managed over the full transition phase of the programme. The co-operation of Dublin staff is essential to the success of the programme because they must train the people who will take over their jobs. While this has presented problems, we have had people's utmost co-operation, which has been remarked upon by those being trained for decentralisation.

The primary mechanism for placing civil servants who wish to remain in Dublin is by way of bilateral transfer. In addition, the Public Appointments Service has commenced the operation of a system that will match Dublin-based posts with people wishing to remain in Dublin. The initial operation of these arrangements brought to light some teething problems. It is being discussed with the Civil Service unions to improve the overall effectiveness of the arrangements.

At the clerical and junior management grades in the general service, which constitute the majority of staff employed, there is a significant turnover each year. Having looked at past recruitment patterns, the group believes that it should be possible to place staff in these grades who do not wish to decentralise in appropriate vacant posts in the Dublin area. The turnover at senior levels is not as great, but the overall numbers at that level are smaller. The group has asked the Department of Finance to liaise further with other Departments in formulating proposals to address the assignment of senior management staff.

On the industrial relations side, considerable progress has been made in discussions with the unions representing the general service Civil Service. It has been possible to build on previous experience with decentralisation and agreement has been reached on a number of human resource and industrial relations matters. These include promotion arrangements that enable a proportion of promotions to be devoted to supporting the decentralisation process while also retaining promotion opportunities for staff remaining in Dublin.

Elements of the programme continue to present challenges, including the position of professional and technical personnel who wish to remain in Dublin, the State agency sector and ICT areas. It is clear that the issues in respect of professional and technical staff in the Civil Service are more complex. Staff have been assured that the programme is voluntary and have been guaranteed alternative posts in the public service in Dublin if they do not wish to relocate. While proposals have been tabled with the unions representing the professional and technical staff on a range of issues, including promotion arrangements and proposals for staff remaining in Dublin, the pace of progress has been slow.

The Government has consistently said that duplication of posts in Dublin and the new locations is not proposed. It is not the intention to recruit an officer for a position in a decentralised location until an alternative post has been found for the current postholder in Dublin. The group remains confident that despite the particular complexities of the issues involved for these grades, resolution is possible through further discussion and has asked the Department of Finance to explore the full range of options across the public service in consultation with relevant unions.

Some 30 State agencies are due to relocate under the Government's decentralisation programme, which would result in 2,340 posts, or just over 22% of the programme, being decentralised. The Civil Service has had the opportunity to develop an understanding of decentralisation over the years, but this experience needs to be developed at State agency level. Proposals for interorganisational mobility to assist the decentralisation programme are a crucial element that will inevitably take time to tease out with the unions.

The group has asked the Department of Finance to pursue directly with ICTU proposals for getting central discussions under way on the full range of industrial relations issues relating to the decentralisation of State agencies. In particular, such discussions must seek to make progress on the question of transferability between State agencies and between agencies and the Civil Service. From the outset, the Government's approach to this programme has been to proceed on the basis of consultation and agreement with the staff representatives. It is the intention of the group and the Government to continue with this policy in respect of the State agency sector.

The group has paid close attention to developments in the ICT area and will continue to do so in the coming months. The group proposes to discuss shortly with the Secretaries General of the organisations concerned the progress made and issues arising in each case in more detail.

The group's June 2005 report referred to the progress made at that stage in the procurement of data centre services. In the intervening period, further research has been conducted by CMOD into issues arising. CMOD reports that the results of this research suggest that while the "warehousing" of data centres could be provided by either the public or private sector, there is a compelling argument that the management of the service should remain within the public service. The group has accepted the recommendation of CMOD that the OPW should convene a working group, including CMOD and the three large Departments concerned, to investigate these issues further and report back by April next.

Initial costings of the decentralisation programme estimated a gross cost of approximately €900 million in respect of procuring sites and office accommodation for the programme. This financial model also includes estimates of receipts from sales of State-owned property in Dublin, which will be surplus to requirements post decentralisation. The financial model is being updated by OPW. While individual aspects of the underlying assumptions may have changed, current indications are that the property elements of the programme will be achievable within the original €900 million gross estimate.

Decentralising organisations have been asked to track non-property costs and savings on a project basis and to provide the Department of Finance with reports on a quarterly basis. These reports will form the basis of reports to the group and this committee. Non-property costs reported to date total €3 million.

I wish to reassure the committee that the implementation of the programme is proceeding satisfactorily. Preparations are well under way to up-skill staff in their new roles. To date, more than 2,300 staff have moved into their new posts with a view to decentralising. The DIG expects that decentralisation will become a reality in 32 towns around the country by the end of 2007, with the bulk of the Civil Service aspects of the programme completed by the end of 2009.

The property elements of the programme are proceeding well, with negotiations completed or significantly advanced in 36 locations. The priority is to ensure smooth transition of business to the new locations. The DIG will manage the phasing of the moves to meet that overriding objective.

In my short presentation, I hope I have given the committee a flavour of progress to date. It is difficult to cover all of the issues, but I will be happy to answer questions.

Chairman

I ask members to be brief. We can return to the matters in question, but some members must leave early and I want to give them a chance.

Deputy Bruton

I will be as brief as I can, but let us not forget that we are two weeks from the deadline for the full implementation of the movement of 10,000 people. There were to be 71 moves to 53 locations, but if we get 5% by the deadline, we will be lucky. I do not point a finger at Mr. Flood or his predecessor in this regard, as it is a politically designed project announced under the secrecy of budget day, an abuse of power in that the normal consultation with those affected or those who could examine the wisdom of the selections was not undertaken. It was done in the absence of a business case being prepared for any of the individual moves, no strategy was put forward on implementation, no consultations were held with those whose lives were affected and no attempt was made to reconcile it with the Government's own spatial strategy. The decision was a fraudulent move and an abuse of power on the part of the Government.

I say that deliberately because I do not believe the Government is entitled to use the public service as a plaything in its pursuit of political goals whereby public servants are moved like pawns on a chessboard. Decentralisation is an important objective but it should be implemented over a realistic timeframe according to proper planning and foresight and based on good business cases. That has not happened.

I have no argument with Mr. Flood's desire to discharge his responsibilities properly rather than work towards a deadline set by the Minister who sponsored the policy. I sympathise with him for having to pick up the pieces in order to make an inept decision work as best he can. I admire the efforts being made in that regard but the process could have been much more efficient if proper forethought had been given to it.

Can Mr. Flood outline the properties which are being vacated in Dublin?

Mr. Flood

I will ask my colleagues from the OPW to answer that.

Deputy Bruton

I will ask my other questions first, if I may. Can Mr. Flood comment on the ten properties for which commitments have been made despite the assignment to them of fewer than 10% of staff? I fear we will commit to expensive property solutions on buildings which will remain half empty. We are already committed to the purchase of properties to which fewer than 10% of staff are suitable for transfer, according to the report of the decentralisation implementation group, and I suspect that most of those who are suitable are in junior grades.

With regard to skill losses, it has been reported that four out of five specialists in the Civil Service are unwilling to move. In respect of State agencies, the proportion willing to move is only one in ten. What strategy is in place to avoid the meltdown of skills in these specialist areas or an expensive process of recruiting replacement staff? What will happen, for example, to staff with specialist mapping skills if they are allocated to general grades in Dublin? This is a core issue, so I want to know what progress has been made on it. Three years into the programme, it is no longer good enough to blame teething problems. How are we going to address that crucial issue?

Can Mr. Flood provide specific information regarding transfers from Dublin? His figures suggest that only 893 of the 2,300 relocating staff, or one in three, are Dublin based. Of the one in three staff from Dublin, 40% are moving to reverse commute locations such as Portlaoise. It seems that decentralisation from Dublin, which was at the core of the policy, is not taking place. Essentially, people are moved between locations outside Dublin, whereas Dubliners, if they are moving at all, are reverse commuting. Something seems to be going seriously wrong.

I am concerned that a shadow operation will develop of people who voluntarily decided against transfer and remain under-employed as a result. We know that less than 10% of staff are moving with their jobs. How many of the remaining 90% have been redeployed?

A figure of €3 million has been suggested with regard to costs. We know from previous decentralisation projects that approximately 35% of posts are filled on promotion and a further 30% by new recruits. How is that being costed? I do not see estimates in this regard in any of the cost listings but if the State recruits new staff or promotes others in order to persuade them to transfer, it must incur costs.

Mr. Flood

Surplus staff in Dublin who did not want to transfer became a high profile issue last year. A perception existed that 3,500 people would be without work. Over the past year, we have made serious efforts in terms of projecting where vacancies would arise and where people would go. With regard to Deputy Bruton's point about the plan being completed by the end of 2006, we put forward a phased implementation strategy which, as the report reveals, has deviated somewhat from schedule. We are confident, however, that over a longer period of five, and probably less than six, years, the surplus people in Dublin can and will be absorbed. Some 60% of the staff concerned comprise civil servants who, other than senior management, can be absorbed over time. People have been redeployed from Departments who did not originally want to move. Therefore, based on the projections we have made, we believe this problem will disappear.

Deputy Bruton

What about the mappers in Ordnance Survey Ireland who do not want to move?

Mr. Flood

I will address that issue presently. A major problem undoubtedly exists among professional and technical staff. Approximately 10% of the staff to be decentralised in this plan are employed in professional and technical roles. They have been guaranteed by the Government in negotiations that, if they do not wish to relocate, they will remain in a job until an alternative position is found. Discussions are ongoing with unions in that regard but solutions are not easily found in a voluntary scheme.

Deputy Bruton

If mappers in Ordnance Survey Ireland or engineers in the National Roads Authority are not going to move when the advance party of administrators relocates, essential skilled staff will be left behind. What will happen to road planning if administrators are in Ballinasloe while the engineers are in Dublin? The implication is that the relocation of specialists can be put off to some later date but are these staff not crucial to the system's operation?

Mr. Flood

As I said last year, any one piece of this programme can be riddled to death. It has not anything to do with where it came from. It is a huge programme, very similar to programmes I experienced in the company in which I worked. Each one of those programmes has tremendous problems usually in a smaller group than the overall group and they have to be managed. The timing is very important. There is no magic solution to the problem.

A number of people in the professional and technical areas who have not opted to relocate will eventually move and, while these will be insufficient to reduce the current problem to a minor level, they will contribute to its resolution. We are trying to manage a very complex plan and this is one of the areas where we have to keep talking to people and searching for solutions. There are difficulties. I do not have a magic solution but we will get there.

Deputy Bruton

I am worried that we are pushing ahead with substantial property commitments, buying some properties where fewer than 5% of the required staff have been assigned. The report states properties must fulfil certain criteria before we commit to a purchase but if only 5% have been assigned I find it hard to understand how the criteria can have been met for such investment. There is a real risk that some plans, such as those relating to the NRA, are not viable.

Mr. Flood

The fact that people have not opted to go does not mean the posts will not be filled, as others will so opt.

Deputy Bruton

The figure of 5% refers to those assigned but far fewer have said they want to go. According to the list only 5% have been assigned to eight properties we have committed to buy, after three years of work. Is that the triumph of hope over expectation, or does it represent proper planning in which coherent criteria, based on the numbers, are followed to inform the decision on when to make a property investment?

Mr. Flood

We are satisfied that we will not end up with property that causes financial problems because we cannot fill it. I will ask Mr. Paul Molloy to explain the criteria.

Mr. Paul Molloy

The property strategy involves a number of steps, the first being to acquire property or a development site. The next step is to commission the construction of an office on the site, which will be dictated by the demand from staff for that location. The management of the timing of the roll-out of the construction project is still under control.

Deputy Bruton

The OPW purchased property for BIM but only one worker out of 93 wants to move from BIM. Even though 99% of BIM staff members do not want to move, the OPW states it has made a decision based on their needs.

Mr. Molloy

I said we had bought a site but a building has yet to be erected on it. The timing of the construction will be dictated by demand from staff.

Deputy Bruton

What is the critical move? The OPW has bought many properties in cases where virtually no staff are willing to move, either from within an organisation or from outside. The two strands are not delivering the numbers but it is still buying property. I expect the OPW to talk about turning sods in some cases in the next six months.

Mr. Molloy

No final decision has been made on the commencement of building works.

Deputy Bruton

At what stage does the OPW decide there are sufficient numbers to justify committing more State money for building, having already purchased sites? When does it decide there are sufficient ducks in a line, so to speak, that a strong business case exists and the service will be delivered so that a building project can proceed?

Mr. Molloy

As I said, the first step involves acquiring a site.

Deputy Bruton

Is that before any of those things are achieved?

Mr. Molloy

Yes. We must be able to manage the timing of the construction, which will be dictated by the demand for the location.

Deputy Bruton

What are the criteria for determining whether enough pre-planning has been carried out to justify committing State money to a building?

Mr. Molloy

We operate within an overall strategy determined at Government level.

Deputy Bruton

Has the OPW asked the Comptroller and Auditor General, who is the expert for the Oireachtas on making commitments on property, for his view?

Mr. Molloy

No.

Chairman

In previous meetings I had formally requested the Comptroller and Auditor General to attend, based on his previous experience, but he declined to participate on the basis that he might, in due course, report on the process. He cannot be part of this debate because he will audit the procedure.

Deputy Bruton

If we persist in constraining the Comptroller and Auditor General from commenting on Government decisions which may create the white elephants of the future we will handicap the Oireachtas in its role of making sure we get value for money. The Comptroller and Auditor General is a professional who has pored over the mistakes of decades. To say his view should not be brought to bear on decisions such as this is the utmost folly.

Chairman

I may not have explained myself clearly. I invited him to attend but he has declined, a decision with which I am disappointed.

Deputy Bruton

Then it is up to the Chairman to report to the Dáil that we are being constrained.

Chairman

We are not. He has an independent constitutional role.

Deputy Bruton

We are. We have a duty, when we find something wrong, to give him the powers.

Deputy N. O’Keeffe

What is the timeframe for this meeting?

Chairman

No closing time has been set.

Deputy N. O’Keeffe

We will be here until next week at this rate.

Deputy Bruton

I am in attendance to ask questions, as is Deputy Ned O'Keeffe. This is serious business and I am willing to stay all night if members want. I do not want us to return in a couple of years' time and wring our hands when the Comptroller and Auditor General says the process was not properly handled and that commitments were made which were not properly planned. I will dig my heels in because it is important business involving a lot of money and many livelihoods. Many regions are expectant about the decentralisation process and we want it to be implemented correctly so that it delivers, to those regions, to the public servants involved and to clients of the public service who expect good service. I will not make any apologies for taking the necessary time because this is a serious matter.

Senator J. Phelan

Can we have an answer to the last question Deputy Bruton asked?

Chairman

Deputy Bruton has asked questions for nearly 20 minutes, so I call on Deputy Catherine Murphy, to be followed by Deputy Cregan.

Senator J. Phelan

Can we have an answer to the last question asked of Mr. Molloy?

Mr. Molloy

We buy development sites in anticipation of buildings being erected thereon. We buy the sites on the basis of professional valuation advice and are satisfied that the prices we pay are well within market limits.

Deputy Bruton

That is not the question I asked.

Mr. Molloy

We are satisfied that the expenditure on sites is effectively an investment in assets. We do not regard it as a threat to expenditure.

Deputy N. O’Keeffe

How many sites have been acquired and where?

Mr. Molloy

We have made significant progress in the acquisition of 36 sites.

Deputy N. O’Keeffe

That is progress from my point of view. Where are they located?

Mr. Molloy

They are literally all over the country.

Deputy N. O’Keeffe

Is this the list?

Chairman

No. At the end of the correspondence there is a progress report on decentralisation.

Deputy N. O’Keeffe

Have any sites been acquired in County Cork?

Deputy C. Murphy

Are people to be called in rotation? I reiterate the point made by Deputy Bruton that the fall-out has been caused by its having been a political decision. It looks like a round figure of 10,000 was picked and the questions of fitting people in and what agencies they were to be taken from decided on later. Mr. Flood used the word "ambitious" to describe the target of decentralising 10,000 people over three years but that is a misuse of the word. A more appropriate word is "impossible". I believe in calling a spade a spade and language is very important. I remember during my time on a county council being told by the county engineer that there had been enrichment of the drinking water. I had to rewind the tape to find out whether that was something that would be good for me. I discovered that it would not be. It was then I realised that language was often used in these matters that couched negative developments in positive terms.

I have been told that the Dublin list is closed. This affects those who opted to decentralise and engage in bilateral transfers. A person may wish to buy a house for his or her family and organise places in school for his or her children in expectation of decentralisation. The Minister for Education and Science recently complained that people were more concerned about the colour of their bathrooms than a place in school for their children. These are important issues that affect the overall planning of people's lives, rather than just where they work. How will decentralisation proceed if the Dublin list has closed?

A risk assessment was carried out by various Departments. We are told that staff who have been decentralised have been surveyed and are very happy. Of course, they are, but are there ongoing surveys of staff who do not wish to decentralise and are under pressure to move? Has a view emerged with regard to such staff? This is important in determining how this problem should be solved. The morale of the public service is at stake.

Have there been staff increases in the public service as a result of the decentralisation project and, if so, what has been their extent? We were told some years ago that the object was to restrict numbers in the public service. Figures from the Office of Public Works could be enlightening in this regard. When the Health Service Executive and local authorities seek additional staff to provide vital services, they are told there is an embargo on new appointments. This is an opportunity cost that arises because staff are taken on elsewhere in the public service to shadow those who are to be decentralised over a protracted period of five to six years. How big are local authorities, and what is the opportunity cost that arises?

Is the issue of risk management being reassessed? I am told some Departments are losing significant expertise because of decentralisation. This is an issue that comes under the heading of risk management, of which the functioning of the public service is an important component. What are the delegates' views?

Information and communications technology does not stand still. It develops from one generation to the next in technological upgrades. What consideration has been given to this aspect of the ICT project? It would be sensible to consolidate, with a single group of experts, who could be of benefit to various Departments, rather than have the expertise filtered in many directions.

Mr. Flood

Ms Stapleton may understand the issue of the closing of the Dublin list.

Ms Áine Stapleton

Since the beginning of the decentralisation programme we have endeavoured to reach agreement with the trade unions on all aspects of the implementation arrangements. Earlier this year we discussed the Dublin arrangements with them and reached a consensus that the process would be based on the concept of seniority across the Civil Service. Under this system the most senior person who wishes to move to a vacant post has first call on it. The operation of the system in recent months has seen some organisations hit disproportionately. We are discussing a better approach with the unions, one that would seek to ensure alignment between the availability of staff to move and their movement to vacant posts. The unions have been very co-operative and we are nearing agreement on the issue.

Meanwhile, the bilateral transfer arrangements mentioned by Deputy Murphy are operating across the system. If a person in an organisation is registered with the central applications facility, CAF, and wishes to move to another organisation with a view to relocation, he or she can engage in a direct swap with a counterpart who wishes to remain in Dublin.

Deputy C. Murphy

Therefore, the Dublin list is closed.

Ms Stapleton

We asked the Public Appointments Service to hold off from calling people until we had reached agreement with the trade unions because we wanted to be sure they were satisfied with our proposed revisions.

Mr. Flood

It was the arrangements in position that had caused this problem. We are, therefore, trying to change them, which is not unusual in an exercise such as this. In an ideal world we would not agree such arrangements but we were trying to find agreement with the trade unions on what was best for staff. Some Departments were quick to implement the programme and they have the best staff in position. However, the arrangements have also created problems in other Departments. We must manage this. The Dublin list will reopen; it has not been closed indefinitely, but there is a difficulty.

Deputy C. Murphy

There is probably a limit on the number at a senior level who will wish to move. Therefore, the Dublin list will close again. It looks as though this issue will be incremental.

Ms Stapleton

Let me outline the basis on which we hope to operate the programme in future. We have asked Departments to provide us with information on the planned exit of staff because they know of staff at certain grade levels who do not wish to relocate and will need to be placed in Dublin based organisations. We will operate the system based on this planning with Departments and the trade unions. Everyone will know what the basis of the system is and we hope we will operate it successfully.

Mr. Flood

We have had to ease up in certain Departments where there has been an exodus of staff that has caused them to suffer. We are trying to strike a balance and various problems pop up as the programme progresses. This is not unusual in a project as complicated as this, particularly since we are dealing with staff in Dublin who are extremely sensitive about the fact that the Department in which they are based is to decentralise. They are being asked to train the person who will take the job. Without their co-operation, it will be very difficult to implement the plan. I do not see anything wrong with being happy about decentralisation and become delirious when I find people who feel this way because I keep hearing so many negative comments.

In travelling around and talking to people about decentralisation I have come upon a number of factors that have been ignored. The level of morale in the Departments I have visited is phenomenal and I have been surprised at people's pride, drive and vision. I concede that these are the staff who wanted to decentralise in the first place but they now have an extra four hours every day — 20 hours a week — to spend at home.

Deputy C. Murphy

I know people who decentralised and have to drive from Leixlip to Navan, for example. They do not have an extra four hours per day at home. I do not think Mr. Flood can state without qualification that the staff do not have to move at all.

Mr. Flood

There is a balance. There are problems with people in Dublin losing their jobs and those jobs going down the country. We believe we can accommodate those people. Unfortunately, they will have to move to another job. However, one cannot ignore the huge number of people who are now living a better life as a result of decentralisation. I have been in offices this week where I was attacked over the negative PR around decentralisation and was told that the Government and the DIG are doing nothing to balance it. The people who have decentralised and are positive about it tell me that they are being looked on as if they have done something wrong.

Deputy C. Murphy

What Departments had their programmes halted when the risk assessment kicked in?

Ms Stapleton

Is the Deputy talking about Departments which have had their move down the country halted?

Chairman

The question refers to the transfer of staff in Dublin.

Ms Stapleton

We have decided that bilateral transfers will continue to operate across all Departments. As regards the element that operates through the PAS, we are not operating it in any Department until we get agreement from the unions. In order to be fair to the Departments and the unions, we will have an agreed, revised set of arrangements for all of them.

Deputy Cregan

I welcome Mr. Flood's recent report and his briefing today. I have heard so much negativity here this morning that I am not sure if we have been reading from the same report. For everything positive that was put forward, a negative angle was found and that is wrong.

Mention was earlier made of identifying property. The implementation group was first criticised for not delivering the plan on time and missing implementation deadlines. However, the group was then criticised by the Opposition for identifying sites and property. The Opposition cannot have it both ways. While the group has been criticised for putting people under pressure to move, I understand that all moves are voluntary. Perhaps Mr. Flood can confirm that.

There are many positives in this report and we should concentrate on and deal with them. The Opposition would be more honest if it said it was against decentralisation. It uses every possible opportunity to be negative in the media and assists the media in painting this in a bad light. It is time that was stopped and put right. There was far too much negative criticism about decentralisation.

I want to return to the locations identified. These were identified as part of Government policy and were warmly welcomed by the communities. Along with the chamber of commerce and other business interests, I lobbied strongly for my town of Newcastle West in County Limerick — I am sure others lobbied for other towns throughout the country. We felt it would be good for Newcastle West and other towns and I am glad to see that substantial progress is being made in Newcastle West. There are many positive aspects to this. We can live in the past all we like. We can criticise the ambition of the programme or the fact that there was not proper negotiation or consultation. All of this has changed and it is important to recognise the tremendous work that has been done by Mr. Flood and his implementation team, especially in the past couple of months. Very significant progress has been made. By the end of this year, 2,300 staff will have moved and that is a success story. It is good for those people because they wanted to move.

The Opposition is being negative about every aspect of this programme at every opportunity. It raises it a couple of times a year and starts nitpicking small parts of this extensive implementation programme. I believe this programme can and will work and I compliment those who are working on it.

Chairman

The group might comment on the negative comments and where it is progressing satisfactorily. That was the gist of Deputy Cregan's comments.

Deputy Cregan

Perhaps the group could refer to the people moving on a voluntary basis. That the programme is not voluntary is raised by Opposition spokespersons every time there is a debate on this issue.

Mr. Flood

People do not have to move down the country. However, the problem occurs for staff that do not wish to move when their Department is relocating. These staff will have to be redeployed within the Dublin area. They do not have to move to the country.

Equally, people in the country will not have to come to Dublin to get promotion. They can now gain promotion outside of Dublin.

Deputy Finneran

I welcome Mr. Flood and the officials from the Department of Finance and the OPW. I compliment Mr. Flood, his predecessor and the OPW on the implementation of the decentralisation programme. This is a Government policy decision that is being implemented. Not all the deadlines may have been met, but Mr. Flood put it well when he said he wanted to do the job well rather than meet deadlines. That is welcomed and appreciated.

Before the decentralisation announcement, I recall the main Opposition party tabling a motion in the Dáil seeking the transfer of 18,000 civil servants to rural areas. The Government decided to decentralise almost 6,000 fewer. Since that decision, Dublin-based members of the main Opposition parties have objected to it and it even became an election issue in 2004. However, members of the same parties down the country have asked that it be implemented as soon as possible; the leader of the main Opposition party did not want decentralisation to go ahead, but he wanted it to proceed in Mayo. The debate has become a little nonsensical. I can assure the committee that no Deputies from the towns or counties that have been identified for decentralisation, no matter what party they are from, will stand up in their constituencies and say they are against decentralisation.

We sometimes have a gimmicky debate here that is not real. It is better for the public to know what is going on. I appreciate that those representing Dublin constituencies have a concern for their constituents and are entitled to represent the difficulties those constituents face — it would be inappropriate if they did not do so. I do not believe in the dementia praecox approach that Dublin has one view and rural Deputies have another.

Two important decentralisation programmes have been put in place in my constituency in Carrick-on-Shannon and Roscommon town. The building in Carrick-on-Shannon has been completed and a site has been purchased in Roscommon and we are pleased about that. An advance party of 40, out of the total of 231, has already arrived in Roscommon and their comments in the local media show they are delighted with their new positions.

Mr. Flood is implementing Government policy in a conscientious way and I advise him to proceed as he is doing. The Office of Public Works has been cautious in how it has bought properties. As with all the OPW's work, this has all been done in a professional manner. The buildings that have been built in Roscommon town, and the sites that have been purchased, are all prime properties which would fetch much better prices were they to be put on the market tomorrow.

My view of decentralisation is positive. If we are to debate the issue further, we should concentrate on the difficulties regarding location facing those who do not want to decentralise. We must understand many have difficulties in that regard. I am glad to hear from the officials of the Department of Finance about the consensus approach adopted by them and the trade unions in trying to reach a conclusion. That is the way forward and I am glad that view has been reiterated here.

When do the representatives expect construction of the new office block in Roscommon town will commence?

Mr. Brian Allen

The Deputy is probably aware that we invited expressions of interest from the market to build the building in Roscommon. We are going through the expressions of interest received and expect to be in a position to invite tenders in the next few weeks. The tendering process will take a number of months to complete, following which we will select a preferred bidder. We will then have to deal with the planning application, I expect by the middle of next year. That is our plan.

Deputy Ó Caoláin

I do not intend to repeat what has been said. I want to ask some broader questions that may not have been addressed and then be somewhat parochial in my remaining questions.

We have heard much about property acquisitions but it was indicated as part of the overall packages announced that significant funds would be generated through the disposal of properties no longer required in the greater Dublin area. I was a little late coming to the meeting and perhaps Mr. Flood has addressed this issue in some way but if he has not, would he be good enough to give us an indication if we have reached that point in any instance? If not, what is his current expectation? Does he expect the disposal of property assets and the realisation of critical funds as a result? How would that funding be directed? Will it be done inhouse in respect of each Department or agency, or are there other plans in terms of the overall decentralisation proposals?

My second question relates to ICT. It was suggested in an earlier exchange that the co-location of units from two or more Departments was under consideration where there was a crossover of ICT. Where stands the examination of this proposal? Is it a live option where the information technology elements of two or more Departments could be co-located? Could a single service entity be proposed for a number of Departments and agencies? Can Mr. Flood give us an update?

Regarding those entities signalled for relocation to my county of Monaghan, we have had progress on the County Cavan end of the constituency. Comhairle and the Combat Poverty Agency were signalled for relocation to Carrickmacross and Monaghan town respectively but I understand neither proposal will proceed. What are the current plans for relocating these entities? Is decentralisation of Comhairle and the Combat Poverty Agency a live project, or have the proposals been parked or even abandoned?

Regarding the signalled host locations of Carrickmacross and Monaghan town, what efforts, if any, are being made to identify replacement entities or units of Departments? If work has yet to be embarked on in that regard, will it be restricted to the numbers initially anticipated in the decentralisation of Comhairle and the Combat Poverty Agency, each of which had small numbers signalled of the order of 85 and 25, respectively? Are we locked into similar numbers in any future decentralisation to either of the two County Monaghan towns mentioned?

Mr. Flood

On the property question, a provision for funding was built into the project arrangements, whereby funding would come from the sale of buildings no longer used in Dublin. Perhaps Mr. Molloy will give an outline.

Mr. Molloy

Certain properties have been disposed of in Dublin in the past two years or so. The disposals generated in the region of €360 million.

Deputy Bruton

How many were linked to the decentralised offices vacated?

Mr. Molloy

The overall decision made on decentralisation facilitated their disposal. In other words, if a decision had not been taken to decentralise, many of them might have been retained in public ownership and used to meet demands for space in the Dublin area. In that sense, we would say the sum of €360 million has come about because of a decision to decentralise from Dublin.

We have not specifically determined what additional properties we will put on the market. There will be additional properties but we have not yet identified them. They are unlikely to produce the proceeds of the sales to date, €360 million, but the focus in Dublin will be to exit from offices and retain, as far as possible, State owned properties.

Deputy Ó Caoláin

On the sum of €360 million realised, Mr. Flood will not have the data immediately to hand but I would be interested, as I expect would other members, to be informed of the detail of the properties concerned and to whom they have been sold. Do I understand correctly that they have been disposed of outside the public sector and that this is not money being displaced from one Department or agency to another? Will Mr. Flood indicate the way these moneys will be employed? Have they been ring-fenced and offset against new properties being acquired in new locations identified for decentralisation? Are they being retained within Departments, or are they being pooled within the Office of Public Works?

Mr. Molloy

There is no specific ring-fencing of the proceeds which have come to the benefit of the Exchequer. They are not being earmarked for specific purchases elsewhere.

Deputy Ó Caoláin

Will Mr. Flood circulate the details of the properties disposed of?

Mr. Molloy

We will certainly circulate them. We sold a property in Shelbourne Road last year which realised in excess of €170 million. That was a major achievement and a record in terms of price per acre.

Deputy Ó Caoláin

Yes, it may have been.

Mr. Flood

As for ICT, CMOD and the Revenue will transfer to Kildare. That remains the combination. The Deputy asked if that was still the combination.

Deputy Ó Caoláin

I was not specific about the instance Mr. Flood highlighted.

Mr. Flood

I was going to list the remainder of them.

Deputy Ó Caoláin

There are others.

Mr. Flood

Yes. The Department of Social and Family Affairs will transfer to Drogheda, the Department of Agriculture and Food to Portlaoise and REACH is also due to transfer to Drogheda.

Deputy Ó Caoláin

This relates to the ICT element.

Mr. Flood

Yes. Therefore, there are no changes from what was proposed. I was not sure whether the Deputy was saying there was a change.

Deputy Ó Caoláin

I understood co-location was under consideration on a cross-departmental basis and that there was an examination of the possibility of doing that rather than maintaining the individual integrity of Departments' ICT sections.

Mr. Michael Errity

At an earlier stage in the process, the possibility was raised whether heads of organisations or Secretaries General were of the view that benefit could be derived from the co-location of ICT units of medium or smaller organisations, which might be more vulnerable than large ones such as the Revenue and the Department of Social and Family Affairs, to create what might be described as centres of excellence. From the broad span of all the implementation plans I examined and having taken account of all the risk possibilities, Secretaries General decided ICT was one of the functions they wanted located with them at head office. In the case of the organisations the Chairman did not mention, they will move with the organisations, as an integral part of them. For example, the ICT unit of the Department of Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs will transfer to Knock with the organisation.

Deputy Ó Caoláin

That answers the question. I was unsure of the up-to-date review of that earlier proposition.

Mr. Flood

The Deputy asked about the Combat Poverty Agency.

Deputy Ó Caoláin

I also asked about Comhairle.

Mr. Flood

Comhairle will transfer to Drogheda and the Department of Social and Family Affairs will decentralise an equivalent number of posts, namely, 85, to Carrickmacross.

As for the Combat Poverty Agency, we propose to meet the chief executives of the State agencies in the next few months to review progress.

Deputy Ó Caoláin

Therefore, Mr. Flood has nothing particular to say to me about Monaghan town at this time.

Mr. Flood

Not particularly.

Deputy Ó Caoláin

Mr. Flood indicated in his answer the group is seeking a comparable number in terms of replacement to the number which had initially been signalled having regard to the numbers engaged by Comhairle. There is no fluidity there.

Mr. Flood

No.

Deputy Ó Caoláin

It cannot be a greater number.

Mr. Flood

Yes, that is current position.

Deputy Ó Caoláin

It wanted fewer.

Deputy N. O’Keeffe

I welcome the representatives from the Department of Finance and the Office of Public Works. We have a good news story on decentralisation following its announcement in the budget a number of years ago, and progress is being made on its implementation.

I would like to be updated on the progress made in up-skilling staff who are to be transferred from the positions they held to new positions throughout the country. I understand such upskilling to increase staff knowledge to enable them to move to other positions is under way.

I understand approximately 2,000 staff will have moved by the end of 2007, some 2,900 will have moved by the end of 2008 and the target of 6,800 set will practically have been met by 2009. These are the figures I have heard bandied about. That represents major progress. It is the best news the designated rural towns in the counties could be given.

The property aspect was raised. I agree with the principal officer, Mr. Molloy, that sites purchased are an asset and that the State will benefit from those. What criteria are used for purchasing those sites? Are they purchased through developers or has the group a team of valuers and purchasers in place?

There is a strong Fine Gael and Labour Party lobby in Cork for decentralisation but there is a different scene in Dublin. I am concerned about the economy of Youghal, which was a substantial industrial town but whose economy is now quite depressed. Two small offices are targeted for transfer to Youghal. I might be jumping the gun by saying that I believe the group has bought a site there.

Mallow was promised the transfer of staff from Fáilte Éireann. A historic castle in Mallow has come on the market for sale recently. Fáilte Éireann deals with heritage and the promotion of this country. The group should consider the purchase of that fine castle as an office for that organisation. It would not be sufficiently large to accommodate the 500 staff targeted to transfer to Mallow but it would accommodate half that number. It is an ideal site for a tourism facility and its purchase should be considered. I spoke to the Minister for Arts, Sport and Tourism and the Minister with responsibility for the Office of Public Works, Deputy Parlon, some time ago and I am due to bring a deputation in that respect to meet the people here concerned.

What is the position concerning the veterinary office in Cork, whose staff are due to transfer to Fermoy, which involves a semi-decentralised move? The office is located on the South Mall and the staff there are due to transfer to a Teagasc site in Moorepark in Fermoy. That proposed decentralisation was announced by the former Minister for Finance, Mr. McCreevy, some time back in Cork. Six months or a year later it was indicated that the activities related to agriculture in the office in the city would be transferred to a facility to be located on that site. Farmers will no longer have to travel to the city and this facility will be more convenient for them. I accept that in this modern age, it is possible to communicate by text and e-mail, but often face-to-face meetings are required. It is important that a facility is provided for that to take place in an environment that is free of traffic congestion.

Progress has been made on decentralisation and much has been said about that. This is a great success story for rural Ireland. The progress the group has made on decentralisation to date has been good. I understand early transfers have occurred in approximately 20 locations where staff are in place and business is ready to relocate. I say "Well done" to the group and look forward to greater progress being made. I hope the group's target for 2009 will be met and the process will be completed by that time. I presume another phase of decentralisation will be announced at that stage, although I do not know who will be in the driving seat at that stage.

Mr. Flood

On the upskilling of staff, it is largely in the form of on-the-job upskilling. Departments were progressive in ensuring that training was provided for staff in time for such transfers. Some 15 business units have relocated and in that respect staff were trained in time to transfer to those units. Where staff opted for decentralisation, they wanted to be in the new location as quickly as possible. They wanted to be trained to enable them to take up their new roles. Departments have impressed on us that they have a requirement to do this in a comprehensive manner to ensure people of the right calibre who are properly trained are available to ensure there is no loss to the business. I visited a data processing facility on Monday and of the 23 people in that unit, only one of them was part of the unit previously. It has retained 22 people and only one member of the old team is still there. The unit is up and running and there do not appear to be any major problems.

Deputy N. O’Keeffe

I referred to a number of sites and areas. I do not want to be too parochial but I am a Deputy for that constituency.

Mr. Molloy

The Deputy mentioned Youghal. What he said about it was right in that we have agreed terms for the purchase of a site in Youghal. It is in the ownership of the local authority. We are awaiting contracts from the local authority to enable us to progress the legal end of the acquisition process.

Deputy N. O’Keeffe

Will that accommodate the two facilities?

Mr. Molloy

It will accommodate both offices on one site.

Deputy N. O’Keeffe

The Valuation Office and the Public Appointments Service.

Mr. Molloy

Yes, the PAS and the Valuation Office. The Deputy also mentioned Fermoy. We are in discussions with Teagasc, which has property in the Fermoy area. It already has a facility there. It is open to dealing with us in providing a suitable site for the decentralised office. We are having that site evaluated by one of our architects. Assuming it is suitable from a technical feasibility point of view, we will propose to conclude negotiations with Teagasc.

Deputy N. O’Keeffe

Is that for the staff out of Cork city?

Mr. Molloy

Yes.

Deputy N. O’Keeffe

Approximately 100 people.

Mr. Molloy

It could be but, offhand, I cannot say.

Deputy N. O’Keeffe

That is a welcome move.

Mr. Molloy

Yes, and it aligns it with the existing agricultural facility there.

Deputy N. O’Keeffe

It will be a type of one-stop shop. I welcome this. There should be more boasting about it.

Mr. Molloy

The Deputy also mentioned Mallow.

Deputy N. O’Keeffe

It is very important too.

Mr. Molloy

We have not arrived at a firm solution. In that context, we would be happy to consider other proposals.

Deputy N. O’Keeffe

I am not an expert, but would Mr. Molloy advise his people to consider Mallow Castle, which is on the market?

Mr. Molloy

We would not rule out anything.

Deputy N. O’Keeffe

I am only trying to be helpful.

Deputy Burton

According to Mr. Flood's statement, by early next year the number of decentralised staff in the new locations will have grown to over 1,000. What is the current figure? The Minister for Finance made his statement about decentralisation three years ago in the Budget Statement of that year. What are the figures on the third anniversary of that speech? Will Mr. Flood also specify how many of those 1,000 are staff who were already located in offices in the regions outside Dublin? I understand the numbers are significant.

Mr. Flood

The current figure is a little over 700. Was the Deputy asking about the number of staff at this point in time?

Deputy Burton

Yes, or at the time of the budget. It is the third anniversary of the then Minister, Mr. McCreevy's, policy statement.

Mr. Flood

Between 700 and 800 have been transferred. By the end of January or early February, the number will be 1,000. Part of the problem is buildings coming on stream in November, as it is difficult to move people in. We anticipate that in the first quarter of next year the number will be 1,000.

Deputy Burton

On the anniversary of the budget, however, it is approximately 700.

Mr. Flood

It is between 700 and 800.

Deputy Burton

How many of them were already located in the regions? I am aware that staff who were already in particular offices outside Dublin were strongly interested in moving back to their home place or moving on promotion.

Mr. Flood

It is about 50%.

Deputy Burton

Would it be fair to say, therefore, that between 350 and 400 civil servants had made the move out of Dublin by the third anniversary? Obviously, Mr. Flood is pleased with that number.

Mr. Flood

Staff who were working in Dublin and have redeployed out of it?

Deputy Burton

Yes.

Mr. Flood

It would be about half.

Deputy Burton

I was interested in the actual figures. It is interesting for the committee to have that information.

Mr. Flood

Before the Deputy arrived at the meeting we explained that while there may have been an aspiration to have the plan in position by the end of this year, the figures we have put forward have been phased out over a period of time. This phasing out will also facilitate the surpluses in the Civil Service in Dublin.

Deputy Burton

Yes.

Mr. Flood

They will be accommodated over a period of time. We have not been driven by deadlines but by trying to accommodate staff, particularly the large number who were staying in Dublin with their posts transferring. We believe we can accommodate them with the new timescale.

Deputy Burton

Mr. Flood will understand that I was present when Mr. McCreevy made his announcement. If I recall correctly, I believe he also said that if the Government did not have the plan implemented within three years, it did not deserve to be re-elected. That was a striking feature of his comments. We could ask him whether 350 qualifies as a measure of whether the Government deserves to be re-elected. That is a political point, however, and I do not expect Mr. Flood to comment.

Deputy N. O’Keeffe

Thanks to Deputy Burton's own supporters, we will be re-elected.

Deputy Burton

Deputy O'Keeffe and some of his colleagues said they appreciated that staff in Dublin had family difficulties and that it was not a dislike of moving out of Dublin. I was Minister of State at the then Department of Social Welfare when that Department was successfully decentralised to the north west. I strongly favour decentralisation but it must be balanced and carried out with consultation.

According to the figures, another 2,300 staff are in posts. In other words, if somebody in the Department of Defence had wished to transfer to the Office of Public Works in Trim, he or she might have been successful in securing a transfer to the OPW and have been selected. I use the OPW as an example because some of its staff are present at this meeting. However, somebody who worked in the Department of Defence in Glasnevin on the north side of Dublin who is, perhaps, living in County Meath and interested in the move to Trim could now spend up to two years going into St. Stephen's Green before he or she is moved again.

Also, with regard to specialist staff in the Office of Public Works, can members of the delegation confirm whether there have been negotiations on whether it will be possible for them to work from home? Presumably, they would do drawings and other architectural or specialist work at home and check in from time to time in Trim.

It is stated the Trim offices have been acquired. Does that mean there is full access to them, that the deal is closed and that any planning issues and so forth have been dealt with? If so, when will the staff move, and when will the move be complete?

Mr. Allen

On the last point, a planning application has been submitted for the Trim offices and we are awaiting planning permission. We expect to get a decision from the local authority by Christmas. We will then have to wait for another month to see whether there are appeals to An Bord Pleanála. We have a preferred tenderer in place. If we get satisfactory planning permission in January, we expect, as set out in the decentralisation implementation group programme, to have the building ready at the end of 2008. That is the realistic timescale at this stage.

Deputy Burton

Will Mr. Allen comment on the negotiations on home working by specialist staff?

Mr. Flood

Mr. Michael Errity can answer that question.

Mr. Errity

I am aware that there have been discussions in the Office of Public Works between management and the trade unions. However, those discussions must be put in context. In an organisation such as the OPW, even in a Dublin-based operation, many of the staff such as architects and so forth are out on the road two to three days per week.

Deputy Burton

I know.

Mr. Errity

The difference will be that instead of reporting in on certain days to the Dublin office in St. Stephen's Green, they will report in to the office in Trim. There is also the possibility to leverage technology to assist with this. If such possibilities can be organised locally and the circumstances and business of the organisation can be enhanced by this, we would support those discussions. I would not like to create the impression, however, that there would be many footloose staff who do not have a headquarters and are not reporting to one.

Deputy Burton

No, but they could contact it by mail.

Mr. Errity

At least several days a week, they will be going to Trim, their headquarters, as they would normally go to Dublin.

Deputy Burton

So they will go at least one day a week, not just two days a month.

Mr. Errity

Whatever the current arrangements are. I would not like the impression to be conveyed that they will call in remotely or be dropping in only one day a month.

Deputy Burton

I would have thought Trim would have good broadband connections that would be reliable by the time the building was finished. Would it not be quite feasible to do that?

Mr. Errity

It may be possible to leverage enhanced productivity from those sorts of opportunities.

Deputy Burton

Yes.

Mr. Errity

However, my understanding is that the headquarters for those people will be in Trim and that they will report there, just as they would to Dublin under current circumstances.

Deputy Burton

In that context, a similar group comprises specialists in overseas development aid. I am sure Mr. Errity knows that the overseas development aid budget has increased significantly. The specialists are our link with the active expenditure of the money, which at times occurs in difficult circumstances in remote locations in Africa.

Has any risk analysis been done of the impact on the overseas aid programme and the risk profile of money not being as well spent as it might otherwise be, if the specialists must all be replaced? Would they be allowed to work remotely from Dublin or Limerick? The particular difficulty here, as with some Office of Public Works staff, is that they are already located between Africa and Ireland, as well as places such as East Timor and Vietnam. They are already bi-located and are well used to moving. There seems to be a problem with tri-location, whereby they may move between Africa, Dublin and Limerick. I am a strong supporter of Ireland's overseas aid programme but I also know it is difficult to ensure that money is spent as intended in such places. If the specialists do not move to Limerick, I am concerned about the risk profile that may arise concerning this expenditure.

Mr. Errity

My understanding is that the development aid area of the Department of Foreign Affairs is due to relocate to Limerick in September 2007. I know the Secretary General of the Department spoke about this matter at the Committee of Public Accounts recently. He has also had a meeting with the decentralisation and implementation group and had the opportunity to prepare several implementation plans which included risk analysis. My understanding is that the risk is acceptable, providing the Department of Finance can come to an acceptable solution with IMPACT to replace people who do not want to go and bring those who want to go with us to Limerick. Obviously, there is a level of business risk in any operation. Can we look at the number of posts in the development aid area? There are about 150 posts going to Limerick. Fifty of those posts are development specialists. As the Deputy said, at any given time, 50% of those people are rotated overseas. The Deputy also mentioned risk and the enhanced remuneration. In recognition of that, additional posts have been provided to the development aid unit of the Department of Foreign Affairs. I also understand that the union would not object to those posts being filled for Limerick.

Deputy Burton

Will they be extra posts which will start life in Limerick?

Mr. Errity

In Limerick.

Deputy Burton

Do I understand, therefore, that the existing specialists are likely to stay in Dublin or Africa?

Mr. Errity

No.

Deputy Burton

Will the extra posts start in Limerick?

Mr. Errity

No. As the Deputy said, about half the initial cadre are sent to various overseas postings on a three-to-four year rotational basis. I believe we can come to an agreement with IMPACT which will satisfactorily deal with this issue. I do not want to be pressed because discussions are going on at the moment and there are industrial relations issues.

Deputy Burton

May I interrupt Mr. Errity? In the next few years it is hoped our development aid budget will reach €1 billion a year. With all due respect to Mr. Errity, he is here from the Department of Finance. If that money is badly spent and mistakes are made, public confidence in our development programme will plummet. Aspects of it are already controversial enough because some people oppose any money being spent in Africa unless there is an Irish missionary to give it to. That is their position. What risk analysis is being undertaken by Mr. Errity's group or by the home Department on maintaining the integrity, quality and value for money for poor people targeted by this programme?

Mr. Errity

In the short term, I believe we can come to an agreement with IMPACT which will bring a considerable number of the existing staff cadre to Limerick with the programme.

Deputy Burton

Are those the existing specialists?

Mr. Errity

A significant number will agree to go and arrangements can be made to redeploy others who, for genuine reasons, do not wish to leave Dublin. The new posts can be filled in respect of Limerick. As I said, we are now in discussions with IMPACT and obviously there is only so much I can say.

Deputy Burton

All right. What is a genuine reason for not leaving Dublin? I thought the decision to go was voluntary, but Mr. Errity is now saying that a genuine reason must be given for wishing to stay in Dublin.

Mr. Errity

A genuine reason would be a person's decision not to relocate with the Department of Foreign Affairs but to remain in Dublin.

Deputy Burton

All right. Up to now, my understanding was that one did not have to show justification in a voluntary programme and that one just had to say one wished to stay in Dublin.

Mr. Errity

A person does not have to show justification; one just indicates genuine preference.

Mr. Flood

If a person does not want to go, he or she just indicates a decision not to go.

Mr. Errity

What I mean by "genuine" is that in respect of State agencies and some of the professional and technical staff, there is what one might call a suppressed rate of application. There are people who are willing to relocate to various places with our organisation, but for reasons of loyalty and respect both to their union and their colleagues, they have not made such applications. Therefore, the genuine level of application is not apparent in many of the figures we look at.

Deputy Burton

Is Mr. Errity suggesting that the unions are inhibiting people or suppressing them?

Mr. Errity

No, I am not.

Deputy Burton

Mr. Errity just said that there is a suppressed level of applications. What is that supposed to mean?

Mr. Errity

There is a suppressed level of applications in that there are people who are willing to go to various locations. However, until what they see as an acceptable agreement is made between their unions and management, they will not make such formal applications.

Deputy Burton

All right.

Mr. Errity

I have no problem with that issue. It is characteristic of industrial relations across the board.

Deputy Burton

All right. What is happening with Enterprise Ireland? My understanding stems from replies to parliamentary questions from the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment. When the former Minister for Finance, Mr. McCreevy, made his decentralisation announcement, it was understood that most, if not all, of Enterprise Ireland would move to Limerick. I think he might have left an office in Dublin. Recently, Enterprise Ireland was given the go-ahead by the Minister and the Department to acquire two 25-year leases on two office blocks in Dublin at East Point. What process is involved? Clearly, this is a contravention of the policy as previously laid out. In this case, however, the staff of Enterprise Ireland were presumably not going and the management decided to be realistic about relocation. Given Mr. Errity's contacts with heads of agencies, was he involved in that decision, and did he accept it? Was he consulted about it?

Mr. Flood

I have a statement that covers it, which I will read for the Deputy, if that is acceptable.

Deputy Burton

Please do.

Mr. Flood

On 13 September 2006, Enterprise Ireland signed the lease for a single-site Dublin office in East Point business park. The agency plans to have completed the move to the new office by the end of December 2007. The Secretary General stated in writing that last November he discussed this issue with the Secretary General of the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment who clarified that a decision to relocate Enterprise Ireland's current Dublin-based staff to East Point had been made to meet the immediate business needs of Enterprise Ireland arising from the fact that the lease on two of Enterprise Ireland's Dublin premises, at Merrion Hall and Shelbourne Road, will expire in 2008, that the move will also serve to bring Enterprise Ireland's Dublin-based staff into a single site location from the existing four locations, and that the East Point building will accommodate approximately 600 of Enterprise Ireland's Dublin-based staff.

The Secretary General further stated that the lease on the East Point building has break clauses and a clause to enable the agency to sub-let space as required to meet ongoing accommodation needs of the agencies, and that these arrangements will enable Enterprise Ireland to respond to the Government decision that headquarters of Enterprise Ireland, including 300 posts, is scheduled to relocate to Shannon as part of the decentralisation programme.

The Secretary General added that Enterprise Ireland plans to establish interim office accommodation in the region by mid-2007 to accommodate the Shannon Development staff transferring to Enterprise Ireland — from January 2007 Enterprise Ireland will be responsible for the development of the indigenous industry in mid-west region — together with a number of Enterprise Ireland regional headquarters staff who will be based in Shannon, and that between the Enterprise Ireland staff moving to Shannon and the transfer of the Shannon Development staff to Enterprise Ireland, it is expected that there will be approximately 70 Enterprise Ireland staff located in Shannon by mid-2007.

Deputy Burton

My understanding was that the Shannon Development staff were always in Shannon and I hope they will remain in Shannon.

Mr. Flood

My understanding of this is that it does not cut across the decentralisation proposals for Enterprise Ireland.

Deputy Burton

Let us add up the numbers. Mr. Flood told the committee earlier that 300 staff had left Dublin by the end of the year, but 600 Enterprise Ireland staff were relocated in Dublin and I never even mentioned the new office of the Minister for Children. On the latter, when decentralisation was done previously, it was always an absolute and correct principle that as far as practicable, new Departments were decentralised. I do not know how many of the staff of the new office of the Minister for Children are from the various echelons of the Departments of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Education and Science, and Health and Children, in particular, but I would imagine 300 or 400 are involved. Mr. Flood might find out for me how many are involved. It means that there are 600 Enterprise Ireland and more than 300 Office of the Minister for Children staff recentralising in Dublin, which is three times the rate of movement of people from Dublin to the decentralisation locations.

I bring it back to a political point. It is not the fault of Mr. Flood's committee. This was a political stroke which is, so to speak, in intensive care and not yet totally mobile. I recognise that Mr. Flood and his colleagues are working as hard as they can, but they have been left with some legacy by the boast of the then Minister for Finance, Mr. McCreevy — I recall it because I heard what the Fianna Fáil people were saying with feeling — that a Government that did not have this done by this month did not deserve to be re-elected. I share that view.

The area, along with parts of Cork to which Deputy O'Keeffe referred, which has experienced the largest number of job losses, is losing manufacturing jobs and is blank on Mr. Flood's map is Donegal. I suppose that is what comes of having three Fianna Fáil Deputies representing the area. Donegal is blank on Mr. Flood's map. It has experienced the largest number of job losses in this country for the past five or six years and it hardly rates a mention. That is disappointing.

Mr. Flood

I would not agree it hardly warrants a mention. The Departments which have moved early have been picked based on business plans, applications and the fact that the resources were in place to move. We have taken the ones we believe were the best proposals early on. This is a timing issue. There are others. The map does not show all the planned areas for relocation. It merely shows what we believe will be the position by the end of next year. The others will have to be addressed, but they were not perceived at the time as having either the numbers applying to go there or the business plan, and therefore are further down the line.

Chairman

What Departments are in Donegal already from previous decentralisation?

Deputy Burton

Social welfare, from the decentralisation in which I was involved as a Minister of State.

Chairman

According to the schedule to the report we received, contracts for sale have been received and are being processed by the Chief State Solicitor's office in respect of eight locations, one of which is Donegal.

Mr. Flood

The Office of Public Works is looking for an office for the Department of Social and Family Affairs in Donegal in advance of a move.

Mr. Errity

To clarify my understanding of the position on the Office of the Minister for Children, most of the current staff of that office are former staff of the child care directorate of the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform. Any additional staff whom that office secures or has secured for new initiatives would have to come from the pool of staff available for redeployment because they have opted not to leave Dublin and there would not be any additional creation of numbers in that regard.

Deputy Nolan

I am pleased to note that the move of the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment to Carlow is one of those at an advanced stage. What is the Flood group's current position on looking positively on proposals for advance accommodation for Carlow? I note that they have succeeded in negotiating with the Carlow local authorities on the purchase of a site and I understand that the matter is progressing well. Has the group sought or looked at advance rental accommodation for Department staff who would wish to decentralise in Carlow, and how far advanced is that process?

Mr. Molloy

We have identified a property solution to meet the accommodation requirements of the advance party and we have reached agreement on terms with a developer. We would hope, all going well, that the accommodation could be ready by the middle of next year.

Senator J. Phelan

I will continue in a similar vein to that of Deputy Nolan, but on the Health and Safety Authority of Ireland's move to Thomastown in County Kilkenny. I understand that a site has been found and I heard rumblings about the possibility of office space being rented as an interim measure before development takes place on the site. I do not know the exact position and I would welcome an answer in that regard.

I welcome the group and Mr. Flood to the committee. Mr. Flood spoke of deadlines in his opening remarks. I appreciate that he did not set the deadlines, but I was the Fine Gael spokesperson in the Seanad on finance when the then Minister announced the deadline on releasing the budget three years ago, and it is imperative politically that we raise the issue of deadlines. I understand that Mr. Flood does not have any hand, act or part in the setting of deadlines, but a commitment was given that there would be decentralisation of 10,000 public and civil servants to the regions from Dublin within three years and we have been told today that there will be 350 decentralised within three years. The biggest fraud perpetrated on the public in my time in politics is decentralisation because we have been told again today that 50% of the people who have been decentralised were not in Dublin in the first place and almost two thirds of the 2,400 now scheduled to be decentralised by the end of next year will be staff who were already employed in the regions. That is not decentralisation, either as heard by me or as announced by the then Minister.

When this issue is raised, Government backbenchers engage in the usual claptrap as to whether Fine Gael favours or is opposed to decentralisation. In my view, decentralisation is a great idea and I welcome it with open arms. I always preface everything I say in respect of decentralisation by stating that I wholeheartedly support and agree with the idea behind it. What is being implemented, however, is not what was announced in the budget three years ago. I appreciate that this is not the responsibility of the implementation group; rather it is a political responsibility. However, questions on this matter have not been answered.

I wish to return to the question posed earlier by Deputy Bruton. Mr. Molloy attempted to answer it but matters progressed in a different direction. Perhaps it is not possible to obtain an answer because the issue in question is political. If the latter is the case, I would appreciate being informed that an answer cannot be provided. If the Office of Public Works purchases a site, when, how and under what criteria is the decision to build on that site made? Perhaps it is a political decision and our guests have no involvement. Will they indicate, however, whether it is a political decision? How many people employed by a particular Department, agency or body must indicate they are prepared to move under the decentralisation process? How many staff appointments or assignments must be made before the construction of new accommodation proceeds?

What is the position regarding the decentralisation of part of the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government to Kilkenny city? I was going to inquire about Dublin premises but I understand our guests are going to distribute details in that regard to other members.

Mr. Errity referred to the suppressed level of application from certain Government agencies. It is good to know that the art of prophecy is alive and well. I do not disagree with Mr. Errity but I do not know how we can forecast with any degree of certainty that there may be a suppressed level of application. As he outlined, the latter is quite probable. In my view, estimating the level in this regard involves complete guesswork.

Mr. Errity

I will deal first with the issue of property. This comes in a number of silos. It would be reasonably accepted that the process of purchasing sites is much more straightforward than decisions relating to building on such sites. All the sites bought to date could, in extremis, be disposed of for at least the value for which they were purchased. The committee should be aware that there is a robust and multi-stage procedure in place which must be completed before a decision is made to build on a site. This applies to advance parties as well as to the definitive accommodation.

When an application is made or when a proposal to construct a permanent building is being considered, a number of criteria are examined. One of these is the indicative timeframe, with which members will be familiar from various decentralisation implementation group reports. As Deputy Bruton suggested, the number of staff willing to transfer to the location is taken into consideration. Another criterion is the degree of progress the organisation in question has made in bringing in the staff who have applied to decentralise. The staffing gap that exists when all those who have applied to decentralise have been absorbed must also be taken into consideration, as must the grade breakdown relating to that gap, namely, whether there are outstanding vacancies among junior staff, among members of middle or senior management or at specialist level. A further criterion to be examined relates to the strategies or structures in place to fill the gap. Account must also be taken of the progress made by an organisation in transferring or replacing staff who decide they wish to remain in Dublin. We must also ensure those people have been accommodated. The status of industrial relations negotiations with the unions on filling the gap to which I refer must also be considered. In that context, management may have many ideas but we must evaluate whether there is a degree of equanimity, understanding and agreement with the unions. The views of members of senior management in an organisation and the implementation plan must be considered, as must the expert view of the Office of Public Works on the various build options available at a location. In regard to the latter, an evaluation must be carried out whether a building could be purchased or whether one might have to be constructed.

When that assessment has been completed by the Department of Finance, it is brought to the decentralisation implementation group for a completely independent analysis. In other words, the Department's assessment is submitted and it is then assessed by the group. Following this, the Department of Finance will revert to the OPW and the particular organisation and issue sanction to proceed with a tender, indicate that on the basis of the criteria considered, it is not possible to proceed with such a tender, or outline the further steps and information required before a project can proceed to the next stage. Assuming approval to proceed is given, the Department or agency decentralising will engage with the OPW to draw up information relating to the detailed accommodation requirements. When that process is complete and when tenders have been issued by the OPW — subject to the normal tender process, subject to public procurement — the latter will write to the Department of Finance to recommend its best-fit solution, setting out the costs involved, its views on the project and, most importantly, the value for money aspect. At that stage, the Department of Finance will consider issuing final sanction.

The decentralisation implementation group issued a detailed report on property in November 2004. The OPW has an ongoing model — which, for obvious reasons, is commercially sensitive — into which the constituent parts to which I refer are fed. I refer here to the acquisition of buildings at a particular location and, as Mr. Molloy stated, the disposal issues arising in Dublin.

Senator J. Phelan

I made specific inquiries regarding a number of locations. However, I will accept Mr. Errity's answer.

Mr. Molloy

Senator John Paul Phelan referred to Thomastown. We have signed a contract in respect of a site in Thomastown. However, the deal has not yet been closed because of some planning issues. We understand these issues are being resolved.

The Senator also referred to Kilkenny. Two elements are due to decentralise to Kilkenny, namely, part of the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and the Arts Council. As for the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government grouping, we are considering a number of possibilities but we have not yet settled on a firm solution. In the case of the Arts Council, we are looking at a local authority-owned building, Evans House, and we have commissioned a feasibility study to determine whether it is suitable as an accommodation solution, in extremis.

Chairman

I wish to raise two matters with Mr. Flood. We met on Monday in Portarlington at the opening of the Data Protection Commissioner's office. The commissioner's entire operation has been fully and successfully decentralised to that location. Questions have arisen about organisations coping with their workloads, continuing to provide the same quality of service and making improvements. I am aware and it is not known by members or the public that even though the Data Protection Commissioner's office completed its decentralisation in recent weeks, an order will be laid before the Dáil in the coming days which will bring the office under the remit of the Freedom of Information Act for the first time. Not only is the office maintaining its service, it is increasing the level thereof.

Of the 22 staff who decentralised, only two are obliged to commute from Dublin. The remainder all reside locally. However, coverage of the opening of the office in the national media gave the impression that no staff had moved. I accept that people were retrained and new staff were taken on, but the decentralisation was successful and the office is 100% operational. Mr. Bill Hawkes appeared in the national media on the "Prime Time" programme and dealt with the issue effectively, even though his office in Portarlington can operate successfully. That is not what I read in the newspaper the following day. I am sorry for being parochial but the timing with this agency was coincidental.

Mr. Flood

Difficulties have been raised but they are not new. These issues have been around since I took this position and my predecessor also dealt with them. They must be addressed but there are also areas where decentralisation has taken place positively and it will progress. The pace may not be as outlined originally but we believe it will get there and it will be successful. The Chairman has outlined a good example but we came under significant pressure from people who had decentralised and who were very critical that so much negativity about decentralisation was being allowed. They believed it was positive for them and their Department and they believed they had seamlessly transferred their business from Dublin elsewhere. There had been no disruptions and they had received no credit for it.

Chairman

Can anything be done? Does anybody have a role in dealing with this spin? It is unfair to the staff who move to be belittled so often.

Mr. Flood

The problem is if one tries to do something about that, one will be accused of spinning. However, people are angry they are not getting credit for taking on decentralisation and it is going well. The morale in the sites I have visited is first class but we must still deal with the difficulties. Nobody is saying to these people, apart from their own managers, that they have done well.

Chairman

Will the Office of Public Works' representatives outline the position regarding the Portlaoise site? It is bundled with other towns but more than 100 staff are in leased accommodation. What is the position on the permanent office solution?

Mr. Allen

Portlaoise is being linked with Carlow and Mullingar. We have received expressions of interest from the market. We are evaluating them and all our documentation is ready to invite to tenders, which we hope to undertake early in the new year. The completion date is still early 2009.

Chairman

Has the site in Mullingar been finalised yet? I hope that will not hold up the Portlaoise office.

Mr. Molloy

No, we do not anticipate it will hold up the overall public private partnership project. We are close to concluding a deal for a site in Mullingar.

Chairman

This is the first time PPP projects have been mentioned. Are other towns bundled in similar projects?

Mr. Allen

The Portlaoise, Mullingar and Carlow project involves 1,500 people and the transfer to Drogheda involves a similar project, which is not quite as advanced. That will also be a PPP because it is a large site with a number of different bodies being accommodated.

Chairman

Are the remaining projects being procured in the traditional manner by the OPW?

Mr. Allen

Not exactly. They are being done on a design-build basis. We produce an output specification, data sheets, etc. We ask the market to come back to us with a design and a price and the tenders are evaluated on that basis.

Chairman

The OPW is, therefore, not providing finance.

Mr. Allen

No, only on the PPP projects. They will be financed and maintained over 15 years.

Chairman

Are those projects, therefore, "design, build, operate and finance"?

Mr. Allen

Yes.

Deputy Bruton

While I sympathise with the Chairman, the negative publicity was generated because of the way the programme was introduced. No consultation took place and no strategy or business case was put together. In addition, the programme did not fit with the spatial plan. The former Minister for Finance created the hostility to this worthwhile proposal because he told staff they were moving without consultation or planning. That is why the programme has met resistance and there is no getting away from that. It is not a case of wicked media outlets trying to find bad news. The programme was badly presented and it has not delivered, which has left a bad taste in many people's mouths.

Of the 78 or more locations, has the decentralisation implementation group decided a number of them are not feasible? I have heard, for example, that the business case does not stack up for the transfer of the National Roads Authority to Ballinasloe, nor will it ever stack up. I suspect other bodies are in the same boat. When will we learn of those cases so that we are not presented with the illusion of our friends in the Office of Public Works buying sites for political reasons or for show when the risk analysis does not reflect that the business case stacks up? Has Mr. Flood viewed a risk analysis in all these cases that satisfied him that he should push ahead with every site? What is the position, for instance, with the move of Bus Éireann to Mitchelstown, County Cork? Has that officially been removed from the list? Was that an illusion on the part of whomever put this programme together?

What are the options for staff of a State agency who wish to remain in Dublin? What are they being offered? Many of them are constituents of mine and they want to stay in Dublin. They work for Enterprise Ireland, Bord Iascaigh Mhara, Fáilte Ireland and other agencies. They are employed under terms set by their employer because they have a specialty. They are not in receipt of offers of employment elsewhere. For example, none of them has been asked to become Secretary General of a Department or to deploy their skills elsewhere. What is the DIG saying to these staff who are at the heart of the proposed programme, given that they are in limbo? Politically, the Government is saying they are moving and the programme is voluntary but the DIG is not offering them an option so that they can execute a voluntary decision to stay.

Mr. Flood

With regard to the perceptions that certain proposals are not on or do not make sense, we have business plans and risk analyses for all locations. We are moving to the next stage where we will meet all the chief executives of the State agencies and we will seek——

Deputy Bruton

Is there is a sound business case for all locations?

Mr. Flood

For the 22 listed in the document and the advance party——

Deputy Bruton

I referred to all the locations. Thirty State agencies are listed.

Mr. Flood

We are about to have discussions with each agency.

Deputy Bruton

What is the position with risk assessments for each agency? The programme has been in place for three years. Surely risk assessments have been conducted, an evaluation of the business case has been made and the upside and downside is known.

Mr. Flood

Our concentration has been on the early movers to get them into position. We are starting to move into these areas and go through them with a fine-tooth comb.

Deputy Bruton

So the group has not examined the risk assessments.

Mr. Flood

We have not delved into them to the extent we need to.

Deputy Bruton

Is that for political reasons because people do not want to say "No" to any project?

Mr. Flood

This has nothing to do with political reasons. People have not understood the size of this exercise. It is a huge exercise in the context of the number of meetings and discussions we have had, the analysis we have conducted, and the depth to which we have had to go into these projects. We had to get the initial movers up and running. We have had to deal with a voluntary scheme, which means people must be treated in a particular way and that is the way we want to do it.

The Deputy asked what was happening to the agencies. The decentralisation implementation group in its report to Government emphasised that there is an absolute need for the Department to enter discussions with the ICTU, the trade unions and the organisations——

Deputy Bruton

When Mr. Flood was working in Guinness and doing the same type of work, would he not first have investigated whether there would have been a business case for moving the brewing department, which is now in St. James's Gate, to Buncrana?

Mr. Flood

In the case of Guinness, none of the craft unions was in any plan we launched.

Deputy Bruton

That is not the question I asked. I asked whether Mr. Flood would not have asked someone to study the business case.

Mr. Flood

The Deputy either wants the answer or he does not. I am trying to give him the answer. We had exactly the same problem. There were areas where we knew we could not make progress and so we went along with those we could and we moved——

Deputy Bruton

That is not the question I asked, with respect. I did not ask whether there were industrial relations difficulties about making changes; I asked whether Guinness did not first consider where the brewing should be carried out and whether there would be a business case for moving to Buncrana from St. James's Gate and that this move to Buncrana would have been for a good reason. My difficulty is that I have not seen any business case for many of these moves. I do not know if there is a business case and I suspect that in some cases there is none.

Mr. Flood

Will the Deputy allow me a little time to respond?

Deputy Bruton

Certainly.

Mr. Flood

The decentralisation implementation group exists to implement the plan. It is not there to create a new plan, rather to look at the existing plan and implement it. My predecessor in the team made a decision to take it in particular bites.

Deputy Bruton

That is the problem. Ministers are not willing to answer whether there is a business case for some of these moves. Mr. Flood is rightly of the view that this was a political decision and he will implement it.

Mr. Flood

The Deputy is answering for me. I have not had a chance to answer. I was in the process of answering.

Deputy Bruton

Mr. Flood stated he takes these decisions and works on the implementation.

Mr. Flood

No. I was about to explain that we exist to implement. I presume the team looked at a particular way of implementation. I presume the team took the locations that had been over-subscribed, with a good business plan and minimum risk, and decided to move with them. Others would then follow on.

With reference to the issue of the State agencies about which the Deputy has concerns regarding his constituents, this should be, to my mind, the easiest to address. If there were flexibility for people to transfer between agencies, for people to transfer from the Civil Service and vice versa, this would take care of many of the problems that exist for the agencies. If an agency is moving and 100 of its staff are not moving, they do not have the same transferability as in the Civil Service. The problem in the lower grades in the Civil Service will be absorbed. We have stressed in the document that it is a matter of urgency that those discussions take place. All it requires is agreement; it is not rocket science.

Deputy Bruton

I do not wish to prolong the argument. It is clear that if Mr. Flood were in Guinness and thought that some of these moves made no sense and there was no business case for brewing in Buncrana, he would not be entering into these very difficult negotiations and he would not be instructing his industrial relations department to take this on. He would suggest it would not be a wise idea and would not stack up as a business case. My difficulty is that no one is offering the committee any insight into these business cases. We are expected to rubber-stamp or listen while Mr. Flood quite rightly says that the group will implement the easiest ones first and move on to the more difficult ones. Many, if not the majority of people, regard moving the core policy units of Departments as a bad idea. I have seen no arguments——

Mr. Flood

The Government policy is that it will happen.

Deputy Bruton

That is the difficulty. Government policy has not been exposed to any scrutiny. The Government used the budget to bring this in under a veil of secrecy. There was no Government memorandum and no attempt to present a business case. The implementation group is doing the job as best it can. It is frustrating for the committee that Mr. Flood is here to answer as best he can on what he is trying to do but the core issue is that we need to know that this makes good sense in each of these cases and this has never been laid before us. The Government deliberately bypassed the procedures established by the Oireachtas and the Government to allow these decisions be taken in a certain way. That is my frustration and it is, unfortunately, spilling out into Mr. Flood's area, although I know he is trying to do the best he can against a limited mandate.

Chairman

The Deputy has overlooked a basic reason. The mandate came from the people in the previous general election and it was in our party's programme for Government. One hundred and four towns had asked for a decentralisation programme. We said we would undertake it. The people of Ireland voted for it and we are implementing the will of the people. That is where the Deputy's business case starts from. It was a commitment to the electorate and if there is a problem implementing a commitment to the electorate, so be it. We are happy to do it.

Deputy Bruton

With the utmost respect to the Chair, that is not the case. Fianna Fáil made a commitment to the electorate that it would end waiting lists in two years and that children would be in classes with fewer than 20 children. The Government just realised that it could not do it, backed off and said it was a pious aspiration. There must be a respect for Government procedures so that we, on behalf of the taxpayer and as those concerned with the proper making of public policy, know that these decisions are based on serious analysis of the options. This is what has been missing. I do not blame the implementation group for this. The reason for much of the negative publicity directed at the implementation group is that refusal to respect the procedures for making decisions of this nature.

Chairman

The discussion seems to be concluded.

Deputy Bruton

It has been very worthwhile.

Chairman

I thank Mr. Flood and the officials from the Department of Finance and the Office of Public Works for attending this meeting. It was a longer debate than originally indicated but such is the nature of life. Decentralisation is an important issue that occupies the minds of many people. It was the only item on the agenda and the committee was able to devote more time to it.

We will have an election to fight but I hope we will be here when the group is here again.

Mr. Flood

I thank the Chairman for the invitation. The implementation group will be happy to provide any further information to members.

Chairman

We had agreed to have a committee meeting next Tuesday, 19 December with the Irish Autism Alliance about legal costs and representation, but it is not in a position to attend next week and would prefer a date in the new year.

The joint committee adjourned at 2.40 p.m. until 11.30 a.m. on Wednesday, 17 January 2007.