I propose to take Questions Nos. 107, 108, 110, 111 and 114 together.
I assure the Deputy that the detailed decentralisation programme which I announced last December took account of all the advices I received as part of the extensive consultation with interested parties which followed my original announcement in December 1999 that the Government intended to embark upon a new programme of decentralisation. In addition to the representations I received from interested towns across the country and submissions from staff interests, the views of Departments and offices who had participated in the previous decentralisation programme were sought and received. In addition, the strategic management initiative implementation group of Secretaries General provided advice, at the request of the Government, on how implementation of the new programme could enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of the public service.
I appreciate all the advice I received in the four-year period leading up to my detailed announcement. However, as I have made clear on many occasions, decisions about the selection of organisations and locations for inclusion in the new programme were, ultimately, a matter for Ministers and the Government. I refer the Deputy to the summary of 2004 budget measures, page B.25, which sets out the wide range of factors which have been taken into account in reaching these decisions.
Immediately following my announcement of the new programme, I appointed an implementation group to prepare an overall implementation plan in co-operation with all of the organisations involved. In its first report of 31 March 2004, the group recommends that each organisation participating in the programme should prepare its own implementation plan and submit them to the group by the end of May 2004. These initial implementation plans will require further development as additional information emerges in relation to the people, property and business issues identified in the implementation group's report. However, I expect them to address issues such as service and business continuity, efficiency and effectiveness and financial implications. The plans must, in particular, incorporate specific risk assessment and mitigation strategies.
The question of publishing the implementation plans is a matter for each Minister. I can assure the Deputy, however, that I will be happy to arrange for the publication of my Department's plan and the plans of agencies under my Department's aegis, after they have been made available to the implementation group and to staff interests. In relation to the issue of public financial procedures generally, I can assure the Deputy that I am aware of the requirement in the public financial procedures for Accounting Officers to ensure that all relevant financial considerations are taken fully into account, and where necessary brought to the attention of Ministers, in relation to the preparation and implementation of policy proposals relating to expenditure or income. In addition there is an ongoing awareness in my Department of the type of risks identified in paragraph 6.31 of the report of the working group on the accountability of Secretaries General and Accounting Officers (the Mullarkey report). I can confirm that all of these issues are regularly addressed in my Department. The issue of risk is a standing item on the Department's audit committee agenda.
Finally, I want to make it clear that I am convinced decentralisation offers considerable benefits for the organisations involved, the communities to which they will be relocated, the staff that will transfer and the country as a whole. I fully support the statement in the implementation group's report:
It can be all too easy to list off the potential problems associated with decentralisation. The real challenge is to identify the issues arising from decentralisation and how they are to be tackled as opportunities for the future development of an even better public service.
