Dáil Éireann Debate, Tuesday - 23 March 2004
5 Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Minister for Finance the discussions he has had with trade unions representing civil and public servants on decentralisation since 17 February 2004; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [9113/04]
View answerAt a meeting of the general council on 10 December 2003, a special sub-committee of general council was set up to deal specifically with the human resource issues arising from decentralisation. Since that date, regular meetings of the decentralisation sub-committee have been held, of which the most recent was on 16 March. A discussion paper on the human resource issues has been tabled by the official side and considerable progress has been made in the discussions.
In addition to the regular meetings of the decentralisation sub-committee of the general council, my Department wrote to David Begg, General Secretary of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions on 18 January requesting a meeting to discuss the implications of decentralisation with trade unions which are not covered by the general council. Congress established a working group to engage with my Department on these issues and the first meeting was held on 9 March. A further meeting is being held today.
Has the Minister or his Department had any contact with SIPTU in the wake of its survey of its members which showed that 95% of SIPTU members within the State agencies and Departments did not want to leave the greater Dublin area? That represents 1,000 workers or one tenth of the total number the Minister had hoped to see relocated or decentralised. Is the Minister concerned about that information? This is the latest example in what can only be regarded as the ongoing unravelling of his proposal which was announced in budget 2004. What is the Minister's response to the survey done in the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment which showed that only 69 of the 503 respondents indicated a willingness to take up any of the 250 posts to be located in Carlow? That is another example of a worrying situation in relation to the Minister's proposals. We have had an emergency conference of higher civil servants——
A question please.
——which showed that only small numbers wished to decentralise, particularly among the older, more settled groups and those with children in education. In response to a question I posed last May in the House, the Minister stated that a great deal of consultation and work had been put into this area. Does the Minister acknowledge that all the information before us clearly demonstrates that there was a lack of consultation and planning and a lack of information given to staff about the proposal to relocate or decentralise 10,300 civil servants to a list of locations throughout the jurisdiction?
The Deputy cannot say there was a lack of planning. We spent four years from the announcement of the decision before we announced the locations and the number of civil servants who would travel to the regions. My Department and other Departments are pushing ahead at full speed with the decentralisation programme. I hope we will be able to fulfil our target date. This programme is totally voluntary. It was a decision taken by the Government and it will be fulfilled.
I noted that my colleague, Gordon Brown, announced in his budget speech last week a decentralisation programme for United Kingdom civil servants. For those who commented unfavourably that I should not have included a reference to decentralisation in my budget speech, I am glad to note that my friend, Gordon Brown, mentioned it in his budget speech. I refer Deputies to an interesting document by Sir Michael Lyons, on which Gordon Brown based some of his recommendations and commentary, which is well worth reading. Sir Michael Lyons totally pooh-poohs much of the commentary about decentralisation, which Members also heard from some commentators in this country. The plan is on course, the scheme is voluntary, consultations are taking place with unions and it is a case of full speed ahead. By the way, does the Deputy's party support decentralisation?
It absolutely supports decentralisation.
Is Deputy Bruton's party for it?
It is a matter for the Member to ask the question and for the Minister to answer it. We cannot have a debate here.
Would you control your Minister, a Cheann Comhairle?
A very brief question Deputy, we are running out of time.
Good for the Minister and good for Gordon. However, has Gordon put any more preparation into it than the Minister? I am concerned that the plan announced by the Minister will not actually transpire. The Minister emphasises the voluntary nature of it but he refuses to accept——
A question, please.
——the salient information that is available.
We will have to conclude this question.
The Minister will be aware that the Combat Poverty Agency came before the Oireachtas Committee on Finance and the Public Service in recent weeks. In the course of that meeting——
The time for this question has concluded, Deputy. We must move on to Question No. 6.
——it was indicated by the agency that this small tranche of decentralisation, numbering 25 to the town of Monaghan——
Deputy Ó Caoláin still has not submitted a question. I call Question No. 6 in the name of Deputy Richard Bruton.
That is extremely discourteous. My opportunity to ask supplementary questions was taken up by the Minister and the Chair made no allowances for the Member——
The Chair has no control over the length of the reply.
——which is your wont. That is the pattern. The passage of St. Patrick's Day changed nothing with regard to the Chair and this Deputy.
There is a means of dealing with it if the Deputy wishes to do so.
There is a means of asking the Minister questions. Will the Chair allow the Minister to reply? The Combat Poverty Agency——
Deputy Ó Caoláin, there is a six minute limit for a Priority Question.
I did not get to ask a supplementary question.
Deputy Burton and Deputy Richard Bruton wanted to ask more questions. There is just over six minutes for each question and every Member is entitled to the same treatment in the House. I cannot make an exception.
You did not allow for the Minister——
When you stood to speak the Chair told you to ask a brief question because the time was concluding.
You did not allow for the Minister's interruptions.
I call Question No. 6.
6 Mr. R. Bruton asked the Minister for Finance if a risk assessment has been undertaken by accounting officers in agencies affected by decentralisation; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [9066/04]
View answerOn announcing the decision on decentralisation, I appointed an implementation committee to prepare and submit an overall implementation plan on decentralisation by the end of March 2004. Following this, each agency will be required to develop a detailed plan for its own element of the programme. The question of risk assessment and risk mitigation, covering such aspects as business continuity and financial and logistical issues, will be addressed in the detailed planning exercise.
This Minister has made no secret of the fact that his decentralisation proposals follow an electoral agenda. He has made the programme subject to the electoral interests of himself and other Ministers. Every town in the country would like to have some Government offices in its town square.
The Minister asked about Fine Gael's view. The Fine Gael view is that in a modern democracy, one does not make a decision such as this without taking account of the published criteria, without an assessment of the personnel and their interests, without an assessment of the property implications of the changes, without an assessment of the impact on the capacity of the organisations to continue and without dovetailing the proposals with the spatial strategy. What is at stake is the style and method of Government. The Minister is presiding over a crassly political approach to this important issue, on which there is a great deal of consensus in the House.
I still do not know whether the Deputy's party supports the decentralisation programme. Does it support decentralising these bodies to these locations and centres or does it oppose it? There seems to be a difference between Deputy Bruton's approach and that of the rest of his party.
I am totally opposed to——
Many of the Deputy's party seem to support it but the Deputy seems to oppose it.
I oppose turning decentralisation into an issue of the personal electoral interests of Ministers. That is what the Minister has said. That is the disgrace in this approach and not what he is seeking to achieve.
Fine Gael seems to oppose these places receiving decentralised offices. As the Deputy is aware, we spent a long time considering this programme. I accept it is very ambitious. We set a deadline to achieve the bulk of decentralisation by 31 December 2006. I made no secret of the date, which is more than three years from the date of my budget announcement and seven years from the time of my original comments about decentralisation. That is a fair and decent amount of time and should allow for the bulk of decentralisation to take place. It will certainly put pressure on Ministers and Departments to ensure that the offices and agencies under their remit have decentralised to the locations in question by that date for the obvious political reasons. It is the job of politicians to make decisions. We decided in the previous budget which offices would be decentralised to which towns. We hope to have completed the bulk of the programme by 31 December 2006.
It is well known that the last resort of the political scoundrel is to cast a slur on those who oppose him.
It is not a slur.
Will the Minister confirm that he made no assessment of the impact on organisations, of the needs of personnel, of the property dimensions or of the relationship of the decentralisation programme with spatial strategy? Is it not therefore a purely politically motivated choice? The Minister has not done the homework. He spent two years doing nothing.
It is four years. Did the Minister talk to anyone about it?
We decided some four years ago to relocate 10,000 civil and public servants outside Dublin. Most Deputies on all sides of the House, excluding the Deputy, but he is the spokesperson for Fine Gael, seems to be in favour of it.
The Minister is persisting with the slur.
I can only take on board the Deputy's public utterances on this matter which he has repeated time and time again.
It is clear the Minister is on the run.
When asked on the floor of the House, he has not given an unequivocal answer, which he expects me to do.
With whom is the Minister doing the planning?
This programme is ambitious and will be fulfilled.
The Minister does not want to be asked questions. So much for accountability.
There is still one minute remaining.
Has the Minister looked specifically at the position of, for example, the Equality Authority which I understand will probably lose about 80% of its staff? Will that have an impact on the capacity of that organisation to continue to do the important ground-breaking work that it is doing?
The implementation committee chaired by Mr. Philip Flynn will shortly present its report to the Government and all matters will be considered.
The Minister gave no thought to that.
There has been some misrepresentation on this matter. It has been known to all members of the Government for many months that this programme would be announced on budget day in December 2003. Every Minister was consulted on many occasions on the relocation of various offices. Some decided to discuss this matter with some civil servants in their Departments. Others chose not to do so, which was their entitlement. The matter was discussed by the Government.
That is not the question the Minister was asked.
I want to put this matter on record. The final decisions were made by the Taoiseach, the Tánaiste and me, and ample consideration was given to all the issues, including the location of the body to which the Deputy referred.
