Dáil Éireann Debate, Thursday - 14 October 2004
6 Mr. McGinley asked the Minister for Finance if modifications in the decentralisation programme announced in budget 2004 are being considered by his Department for presentation to the Cabinet sub-committee. [24600/04]
View answerThe Government is determined to press ahead with the implementation of the decentralisation programme announced last December. Considerable progress has already been made and the latest figures from the central applications facility show there is very substantial interest in the programme within the public service. My Department is not considering any modifications in the decentralisation programme for presentation to the Cabinet sub-committee on decentralisation. The next significant milestone in the process will be a report by the implementation group later in the autumn to the Cabinet sub-committee outlining the group's views on sequencing and timing.
I wish to ask the Minister for his response to some of the issues that have arisen in the Oireachtas hearings on these matters, since he says there will be no modification. Is he aware that in 17 out of the 30 agencies it is proposed to move, less than five individuals have offered to move and that in some cases there is a 100% meltdown of the key strategic skill base, that none of those in key strategic areas, such as the probation office, is moving? What is his reaction to the statement by the National Roads Authority that if it moved, as is proposed, its capacity to do its job would be seriously undermined? It came as a shock to me to learn the decentralisation programme was decided without any Government memorandum, strategy statement, human resource plan, or individual assessment of the business cases of each of the different agencies being moved.
The Deputy asked if I am considering modifications. I am not considering any modifications. The implementation group has come before the joint committee and has outlined the progress to date. This is a rolling programme. What has to happen next is to identify who will come forward in the first tranche. That will be based on the sequence and timing which will be advised and suggested by the implementation group. The Deputy must recognise the implementation group has been given the job. We will proceed on the basis of the decisions which have been taken. The best way of assessing and monitoring progress is based on the implementation group's reports coming forward.
Is the Minister aware that the chairman of the implementation group said to the joint committee that some of these proposals are not implementable? Is he aware that on the occasion of the last successful decentralisation programme, 50% of the jobs moved were filled either by new promotions or by new recruitment? Given that the Minister's predecessor gave an assurance there would be no new promotional positions and no new recruitment how does he propose that the implementation group can deal with these issues if there is no modification in the Government's position?
We have to await discussions on the report of the implementation group in respect of any issues that arise.
These are already known. They are in the public domain. The Minister is keeping his head in the sand.
I look forward to meeting Mr. Flynn and I have every confidence in his chairing of the implementation group. I have worked with him in previous ministries and his capacity should not be underestimated. He will meet me based on the progress that has been made——
So there will be modifications.
No.
It is very clear there will be modifications.
That is the Deputy's view. Does the Deputy wish me to answer the question?
No, it is his view.
That is the Deputy's view. We will proceed based on the report of the implementation group and we will roll out the programme.
In the meantime the Minister is keeping his head in the sand.
In the meantime we will progress the report.
Is the Minister aware of the statement by the chairman of the implementation group to the Joint Committee on Finance and the Public Service last week that there would be no big bang in relation to decentralisation because parts of the programme were unimplementable? Has any costing been done of the ongoing revenue cost arising from decentralisation? The capital programme is a separate issue. Is the Minister aware of the detailed briefing the chairman of the implementation group gave to the joint committee last week on the supports and costs that would arise for the many civil servants who are opting to remain in Dublin? Is he aware that no solution has been found for the State agencies where few have opted to leave Dublin? Given that the Government has said those agencies will be relocated how will it get the expert people?
The Deputy has exceeded the one minute time limit.
Will it pay two sets of people, one to move and one to remain in Dublin? That is what the chairman of the implementation group told the joint committee.
It is not a question of a big bang and that we will all wake up some morning and this will be finished. No decentralisation programme, whether one supported by the party of which the Deputy is a member, and which on one occasion deferred a decentralisation programme for over eight years, or this Government, produces a big bang. This is a voluntary scheme.
Is the Minister aware of the former Minister's assurance——
Deputies are not entitled to intervene or interrupt.
This is a voluntary scheme. There is no need to misrepresent the nature of the scheme. As a Government we are committed to a very expansive programme of decentralisation. We have put an implementation group in place to roll out that programme. As it moves forward we will discuss the issues as they arise. The first issue was to ascertain how many were interested in the programme. Much to the chagrin of the Opposition thousands of people, Dublin based and in other parts, are interested in the programme.
I call Deputy Boyle who has a supplementary.
The next question is to what extent we are able to match those requirements and the willingness of those to engage with the programme set out.
The Minister did not say if any relevant costings have been done.
Members must obey the rulings of the Chair. I have called Deputy Boyle to ask his supplementary.
Does the Minister not see the irony in the fact the Civil Service Commission, the body with responsibility for recruitment and appointment to the Civil Service, can identify only two persons on its current staff who are willing to move to Youghal, County Cork, and that bodies such as the Equality Authority has not identified even one member of staff to go to Roscrea? Of the thousands of people he has cited in his reply, does he recognise, given that 50% are outside Dublin, that makes a nonsense of the Government's relocation policy which was based on the premise that Dublin would reallocate resources, become a better lived-in city in terms of resources and there would be an economic fillip for towns and cities around the country? In my constituency the Department of Agriculture and Food is moving to Macroom but the people working there will get no benefit. Given the inconsistencies it is a policy that is dead in the water.
The former Minister, Deputy McCreevy, said here on 17 September that 9,000 had registered with the central applications facility. Will the Minister accept the impression was given that all of these were Dublin-based civil servants applying to relocate? Will the Minister accept the reality is a much reduced figure? Will he agree with my assessment that the number of Dublin-based civil servants and State agency employees applying to relocate outside Dublin is of the order of 4,800? In his contribution to the Joint Committee on Finance and the Public Service, Mr. Phil Flynn said the decentralisation programme, if it is to succeed at any level — from that signalled and signposted initially last December to now what looks more likely — the Government will have to invest in child care facilities in each of the new locations identified.
The central applications facility is still open and people are still applying. We have given an update on its progress. One cannot simply ask for a big bang as if that was the intended outcome of the decentralisation programme. It is a rolling programme. There are people who are showing an interest in leaving and others who are hesitant and not showing any interest in leaving. We will have to deal with that position though the implementation group process as we proceed and find solutions where we can. Let us be clear, this is a voluntary scheme. It was never suggested it would be anything other than a voluntary scheme. The level of interest shown is far greater than was anticipated by those who have been naysaying from the beginning. We will continue to work out that scheme in the best way we can, consistent with the fact that it is voluntary.
7 Ms B. Moynihan-Cronin asked the Minister for Finance the estimated cost of providing and equipping buildings for the Government’s proposed decentralisation programme; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [24658/04]
View answerThe Budget Statement 2003 set out a major new programme of public service decentralisation involving the relocation of 10,300 civil and public service jobs to 53 centres in 25 counties. Further announcements since then increased the scope of the programme to over 10,500 jobs in more than 56 locations.
My office has been tasked with procurement of development sites in the designated locations and the procurement of accommodation solutions to the office and facility requirements of the Departments and agencies involved.
The decentralisation implementation group recommended a public private partnership approach, where appropriate, to the procurement of office accommodation. To this end my office has been developing a comprehensive risk-adjusted costing of project elements to measure the value for money of future PPP bids. It is possible that the scale and location profile of some decentralisation projects would not fit within a PPP-procured model. Accordingly, the cost profile of such projects may vary from the standard model.
It is anticipated that in the vast majority of cases the accommodation facilities will be provided by the construction of new office buildings and cost estimation can be approached on that basis. However, in advance of actual market testing of any procurement methodology, it is possible at this time only to assign the most general measurements of cost to such a large-scale and diverse programme.
It is estimated that approximately 210,000 sq. m. or 2.26 million sq. ft. of office space will be required to accommodate the total numbers included in the programme. Current industry cost norms in respect of commercial offices indicate an average build cost to fit-out standard in the range of €1,450 to €2,000 per sq. m. Such figures exclude VAT, professional fees and inflation.
In addition, the cost of equipping the accommodation to standard office equipment levels could be estimated at circa €4,000 per person. This would exclude the cost of information and communications technology and specialised equipment requirements. Such general measurements of cost do not include site procurement costs, specialised facility and equipment requirements and other variables which would arise from the spread of possible procurement methodologies.
In addition, general cost indicators of this type show a snapshot in time. The chairman of the decentralisation implementation group laid out a sequencing approach to members of the Joint Committee on Finance and the Public Service on 6 October.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House.
The group's views on sequencing and timing are to be submitted to the Cabinet sub-committee on decentralisation for its consideration. The outcome of these deliberations will clearly have an impact on how we can more closely assess programme costs going forward.
It is axiomatic that a firmer scale of costs for the decentralisation programme will only emerge on foot of actual cost proposals being received from the market. Nevertheless we can clearly anticipate that, generally speaking, the cost of providing accommodation infrastructure in provincial locations compared with central Dublin locations should yield considerable cost savings to the State over time in terms of site costs, capital build costs and indeed maintenance costs.
Does the Minister of State have a costing for the overall programme given that it was announced almost a year ago? We have seen various estimates of the overall capital cost in the region of €1.5 billion and, although the Minister of State has referred to this figure being offset against the money raised from the sale of some Government properties, I am concerned that the taxpayer gets value for money rather than property developers make a killing in 53 locations around the State.
Last week the chairman of the implementation committee spoke about property solutions being agreed for seven locations and nearly agreed in respect of 16 others. Will the Minister of State give the House costings in respect of those locations and inform Members what he is doing to ensure value for money for the taxpayer as opposed to providing killings for property developers?
We can only be guided by the normal industry costs of procuring buildings, the basis of which I have laid out.
Is the figure of €1.5 billion correct?
I have laid out the figures. The Deputy can do her own sums.
That is not a reasonable answer.
We do not have the figures.
The Minister of State is supposed to have the figures from the Department of Finance.
The former headquarters of the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform was recently sold for €52.3 million.
Is that the building on St. Stephen's Green?
That is correct. The price is on the public record and is substantial. We can expect a substantial saving in respect of providing that scale of accommodation in any of the provincial locations.
In regard to sequencing, the chairman of the implementation committee will come before the Cabinet sub-committee shortly with a recommendation of a number of relocations and we will begin with those that fit. Despite some of the poor figures suggested by the Opposition, the central applications facility has found that a substantial number of locations have been substantially over-subscribed. All the right people want to move to decentralised locations. Likewise, the OPW is close to finalising site deals and, in some places, the deals are finalised.
How will the Minister of State deal with a situation, which almost certainly will occur, whereby 50% of staff are willing to move and an office is set up for them while the remaining 50% stay put? In such a case there will effectively be two operations of, for example, the Equality Authority or the NRA. At what point will the Minister of State tell the people who have opted to stay put that they must go elsewhere? Does the voluntary element still remain if they are shunted into another office because the Minister of State wants to vacate a property? How does the Minister of State envisage handling situations where shadow staff in Dublin say they want to stay in their posts and are entitled to do so?
The implementation group has examined all those problems and I recall the chairman informing the Joint Committee on Finance and the Public Service that he saw solutions to them.
The chairman also said he was concerned about office blocks lying idle.
What are the solutions?
We can worry forever but Deputies can be assured that the Department of Finance will come forward with solutions based on the good advice of the implementation committee.
Are these solutions too valuable to be released to the public and the taxpayers who will have to pay for them?
It is too early to assess them.
We have not addressed all of them yet.
These are all on the public record. These are issues which must be addressed. The Minister of State cannot treat us like idiots.
The CAF was designed primarily for and lent itself to applications from civil servants.
We are talking about the costs not the CAF.
I am addressing a question.
Having made a virtue of trying to sell as much OPW property as possible in the past year, what efforts have been made to match what property remains in the OPW portfolio to meet the Government's office relocation programme? What steps is the Department taking to avoid such situations where, for example, hotels were purchased for refugee reception centres or IDA advance factories were purchased on 35 year leases and remain unused? Members on this side of the House have little confidence that those lessons are being learned.
We sought expressions of interest from the public in all the locations and they are now being dealt with. Generally, where suitable State options have been available, the first deals done have been in respect of them. Local authority and State lands have been used everywhere they have been available. The OPW would not even consider selling property which had a continued use for the State. Any property sold has been surplus to requirements.
There are solutions everywhere. On the basis of advice from the implementation group, we can now look at addressing the specific problems of the State agencies. For instance, different cultures pertain in respect of different State agencies and staff may not be able to transfer between them. The implementation group has solutions to propose in this respect which will be coming forward shortly.
What exercise will be undertaken in cases where Departments and agencies, for example, the Combat Poverty Agency and Comhairle, which were originally assigned to Monaghan and Carrickmacross, respectively, have indicated that they will not transfer to those locations? What amelioration of the procurement process for equipment and so on has taken place or does the Minister of State believe a template exists which can automatically apply, commensurate with the numbers designated? Will the Minister of State explain the position and give the House a sense of the status of towns such as Monaghan and Carrickmacross where a question mark remains as to whether they will be part of the final programme?
I recall that, before her new appointment, the then Minister for Social and Family Affairs, Deputy Coughlan, referred specifically to Comhairle and confirmed that another section of her Department would move to Monaghan.
