Vol. 460 No. 5
6 Mr. M. McDowell asked the Minister for Enterprise and Employment the plans, if any, he has to establish the Companies Registration Office as an executive agency independent of the Civil Service; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [1565/96]
I would refer the Deputy to my reply to Question No. 36 in this House on 21 November 1995 — columns 924 to 925, volume 458, No. 5 — which adverted, inter alia, to the question now raised by the Deputy. I would further refer the Deputy to my foreword to the Companies Report for July 1993 to December 1994, presented to the Oireachtas last month wherein I indicated that no useful purpose would be served by changing the legal status of the office. This is the policy position on legal status that continues to obtain. However, I will continue to promote greater autonomy, including a more commercial and service orientated structure, in the Companies Office and in other agencies of the Department.
I visited the office before Christmas to meet the staff and see for myself the day-to-day operations of the office. My perception is that the office already operates independently of the Department on its day-to-day business and manifests a particular "can-do" ethos. Significantly, the office has had its own dedicated financial allocation since January 1994. This permits management to allocate financial resources to the priorities it considers most appropriate. There have been a variety of plans finalised in recent times. In the critical area of information technology, there will be a substantial further investment in line with a new IT plan over the next few years. The Companies Office management have recently received a "business process re-engineering" report which, in association with the new IT plan, will be implemented to streamline procedures and working methods.
As befits a customer orientated organisation, staff of the office regularly attend seminars and conferences and make presentations in areas that impact on the operations of the office. To cite just a few: the office has had stands at "Business Arena" exhibitions and earlier this month had a stand, to meet its customers, at the "Self-Employed 96" exhibition in Tallaght when some 16,000 persons filed through.
I have agreed to establish “CROlink”, a new vehicle for structured liaison between customers and the Companies Office and I have recently issued invitations to nine bodies to propose nominees for membership.
During 1996 it is intended to relocate the Companies Office from its current inappropriate accommodation to more customer friendly premises in the Dublin city area. I am confident that these measures, which form an integral element of plans for the future of the office, will serve to considerably improve customer service and the operational effectiveness and efficiency of the office over the next few years. Again I wish to affirm that the office has worked very effectively with its available resources and pay tribute to all the staff involved.
I would not like it inferred from my question or the Minister's reply that I am in any way critical of the staff in that office who are doing a trojan job of work in appalling circumstances.
The Minister mentioned the relocation of the office which he said would render it more customer friendly. Where exactly will it be relocated? In this context, would he agree it is important that there be genuine autonomy involving remuneration for the management of the Companies Registration Office who should be given every possible incentive to be as commercial as possible and allowed determine its wage structure and incentive packages?
Would he agree that the real issue is the need to establish criteria by which the performance of that office can be judged in terms of "turn around" time in respect of matters which have to be registered, the up-to-date quality of material available and the extent to which the office prosecutes companies in default or which have been struck off the register? If there were to be performance criteria, would the Minister agree that things would be a lot better, when the public could judge whether the quality of service had improved?
It has to be accepted that, traditionally, the Companies Office has suffered from inadequate resources; even the authorised staff complement — which I understand is of the order of 99 — never surpassed 80. The accommodation — which I visited since Deputy McDowell's last question — is completely inadequate, grossly over-cramped, staff endeavouring to cope with impossible demands in very unsuitable, cramped conditions, all of which must be taken into account. In fairness to their performance — on which I note Deputy McDowell is not reflecting in any way — of course I agree with the Deputy's suggestion that the office be given greater incentive to be commercial, efficient and effective in its responses.
Indeed the present attitude of my Department to offices like the Companies Office, the Director of Consumer Affairs, the Register of Friendly Societies and the Competition Authority, is to afford them optimum autonomy to arrange commercial and efficient responses to their users. However, the question of extending that to permitting their managers to set their own salary guidelines, as suggested by Deputy McDowell, is not possible within the structure of public service pay. Indeed, it is a phenomenon one observes in terms of the application of the recommendations of the Gleeson report to chief executives, whose remuneration falls within its remit, that in some cases it is being side-stepped by contract arrangements and the like, not a permanent arrangement that would work indefinitely into the future. That is my personal view.
I am satisfied that the Companies Office is now well managed and that the problem relates to its inadequate resources which this Government is tackling. On the last occasion I answered questions on this matter, I referred to the development of an information technology plan and the allocation of resources for its implementation. On the matter of performance criteria, to which Deputy McDowell referred, the announcement I made in reply to this question in respect of the establishment of the “CROlink” will do precisely that. It will set the performance criteria. I do not wish to go into it in greater detail until the persons to whose organisations I have written to ask them to make nominations have replied. They are the users of the service being provided by the Companies Office. I have no doubt the establishment of a users' council, if you want to call it that, will address the questions Deputy McDowell raised in terms of the performance of the office.
What is its new address?
The Minister forgot to mention the new location of the Companies Registration Office. I have the impression that I will not get an answer to that question. This is a "goodie" that has to be announced under the auspices of the spin doctors rather than in the Dáil. This is good news to which Members are not entitled until the spin doctors have the press release ready. I will repeat the question and again challenge the Minister to tell us where in Dublin there are more customer friendly premises to which this office will remove itself. I invite the Minister to pay this House the elementary respect of telling us first rather than calling a highly expensive press conference where he can posture as being the friend of industry to achieve the same result.
Second, as I understand it, there is no good reason the Companies Registration Office should not be self-financing in that the cost of registration, making inquiries, putting in returns and so on should be capable of being covered by the charges made. Is the office self-financing and, if so, why are there so many vacancies in its nominal establishment? If it is not self-financing why will the Minister not make it self-financing? If he does so, will he agree that, in those circumstances, it should be contracted to an agency rather than carried on within the public service? There is no good reason it should not be. If Bord Telecom can run the telephone service I suggest there is no reason a similar body cannot run the Companies Registration Office on a self-financing basis.
The frankness of my earlier reply has left Deputy McDowell with no supplementaries.
Can the Minister be frank about the address of the new office?
As regards the address of the new office——
The Minister is so coy.
——Deputy McDowell will be aware that I have never resorted to the use of spin doctors. I do my own spinning, not always with success, but I shall not be resorting to the use of spin doctors to announce the address. The badly needed relocation will take place this year and will be within walking distance of the Bar Library. In deference to my colleague, the Minister for Enterprise and Employment, Deputy Richard Bruton, I can say it will be on the north side of Dublin. Until such time as the——
Spin doctors.
——arrangements are concluded and the management and staff concerned are happy with the design and layout I cannot go further than that. The office is substantially self-financing as it stands and is becoming more so. I envisage if it had the resources, space and facilities to deal with the demands on it in 1996, it would become more self-financing than at present. In fairness, any assessment of the modern Companies Registration Office would conclude that it is doing a very effective job and as the resource demands are increasingly met, over the next couple of years, it will do an excellent job about which there can be no complaint and no necessity to alter its legal status.
If the Minister knows where the office is I cannot understand why he will not reveal it to this House. If it is being kept a secret from the civil servants who are in the Companies Registration Office, because they do not know about it yet, that is extraordinary coming from a former trade union official. On the other hand, if they know about it why can I not know about it? Is there a huge secret about it, or is it that the landlord of this premises does not yet know the Minister has his eye on it or is not in negotiation? It is an extraordinary way to deal with Parliament that the Minister will not reveal basic information to the House. What about the glass pane which the Taoiseach talked about which would characterise this Government from the point of view of openness?
This is leading to argument.
All questions are arguments.
They ought to be direct, succinct and relevant.
