Enda Kenny
Ceist:1 Deputy Enda Kenny asked the Taoiseach the number of staff who have applied for relocation under the decentralisation programme; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [30632/09]
Ceisteanna — Questions.
Decentralisation Programme.
Eamon Gilmore
Ceist:2 Deputy Eamon Gilmore asked the Taoiseach the number of staff, broken down by grade, who have applied for relocation under the decentralisation programme; the number of such staff who have actually transferred; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [32529/09]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 and 2 together.
Of the 169 civil servants currently serving in my Department, 28 have applied through the central applications facility, CAF, to relocate under the decentralisation programme.
The breakdown by grade is nine assistant principals, five higher executive officers, two administrative officers, four executive officers, one staff officer, six clerical officers and one from the services grades.
A total of 29 former members of staff have already been assigned to decentralised posts. There are no proposals to decentralise my Department or any of the bodies under its aegis. It is a matter for those Departments to which staff from my Department have decentralised to assign such staff to locations outside Dublin.
Were one to ask the people, they might have a view on decentralising the Taoiseach's Department. I refer to the 28 persons who have applied to the CAF for decentralisation from the Department of the Taoiseach. For what Departments and locations have they stated a preference? Have a number of the locations for which they have expressed a preference been stalled because of the general position in respect of decentralisation?
I do not have to hand information on what are their preferences. It is a matter for decentralised offices to use the central applications facility to decide what personnel will be asked to move to the locations. This will be in line with their preferences.
Arising from this, the Government provided €72 million in an envelope for decentralisation in 2009. What proportion of money has been spent on decentralisation? The Government also made a decision that, arising from the general economic situation, no further expenditure will take place on the acquisition of accommodation for decentralisation unless it was vetted by the decentralisation implementation group. What has happened in respect of the decision? Is information available from the decentralisation implementation group? There are 35 locations where a review is pending in 2011. What will happen to the sites in those cases? Many were acquired at exorbitant prices. They have devalued as a consequence of the general situation. Perhaps the Taoiseach has information on that.
Does the Taoiseach have information on the cost of maintaining empty buildings? The State owns quite a number of buildings in the decentralisation process that are lying empty. Given that we are a fortnight from the budget and given the projections for next year, is the decentralisation process still alive or is this just another sham, saying a review will take place in 2011 when the world and its mother knows that in many of these locations nothing will happen in respect of the announcements made many years ago by the then Minister, Charlie McCreevy?
Detailed questions in respect of the decentralisation programme are dealt with by the Department of Finance. I am dealing with my Department's position. From replies issued by the Department of Finance at the time and since then by the new incumbent, there has been a saving by Departments and the State in respect of the cost of relocating to sites as opposed to the disposal of sites in Dublin at very high prices.
The Taoiseach said the number of people who had applied for decentralisation from his Department was 28. That is exactly the number who had applied for decentralisation in March. I take it from his reply that nobody has been decentralised from his Department since March. When was the last occasion on which there was a successful applicant for decentralisation? In other words, when was someone last decentralised from the Department of the Taoiseach?
What is the position regarding the announcement in the October 2008 budget that, in effect, the decentralisation process has been put on hold? Does that mean no further applications are being accepted or considered within Departments or does it mean no further decentralisation is taking place?
I assume there has been no further decentralisation since this question was asked in March. The detail of the programme is dealt with by the Department of Finance. The decision made in the last budget stands. Those who are in the process of moving will continue to complete the move while others are kept under review until 2011.
If someone had been accepted for decentralisation in March or last October and the person had started the process of moving, is this move to be completed? Since that announcement in October, are no applications now being entertained for decentralisation? Is that the current position?
The detail of where the programme is in every respect is best dealt with by the Department of Finance. That Department deals with the decentralisation programme on an ongoing basis. Advance parties in temporary offices that will be converted into permanent premises in the location they are in or locations in the same town will complete decentralisation in that way. In 2011, the Government will review decisions in respect of those agencies or Departments that had not progressed issues to the point where sites were allocated or buildings were being built.
Is decentralisation still a cornerstone of Government policy on delivering public services? A report in one of the newspapers at the weekend suggested the Government is considering reducing the number of local authorities to 22. The Taoiseach will recall that his party lost the local elections. I presume he will not do a Robert Mugabe on local government. How does he reconcile reducing the number of local authorities with a policy that has decentralisation as its approach to delivering local public services?
That relates to a review on programme expenditure, the McCarthy report. Recommendations have been made in respect of trying to rationalise local authorities and local authority provision. One reads much in the newspapers coming up to budget time, including speculation, argument and suggestions. Decisions are made on budget day and we should concentrate on these. How I reconcile any change that must take place, whether in local authority structures, the health services or any area of provision of public services, is that we need to modernise and use every possible means of rationalising services to best effect to have the most cost-effective system. The county system has served us over the years, with various educational committees such as town VECs, county VECs, regional bodies and a series of organisations. Some of these were built for programmes at the insistence of the European Union. All of this is being considered, some in the short term and some in the medium term.
Can the Taoiseach indicate if the following rumour is correct, namely, that the policy of decentralisation will be abandoned at the budget and replaced by a policy of centralisation in the interest of economies of scale? The Taoiseach is essentially doing a U-turn on the policy he implemented during his term as Minister for Finance. Does the Taoiseach agree with the McCarthy report critique of his decentralisation programme and the waste of public money and lack of efficiency that resulted from it?
Neither assertion is true. I just made the point to Deputy Shatter's leader that there has been a saving in overall capital cost terms of relocating——
In the context of the efficiency of Government.
Yes, it is possible to have efficient Government outside the beltway. The Deputy may not be aware of that but it is possible.
The Taoiseach is not able to have efficient Government inside or outside it.
No——
The Taoiseach is in government, where it is operating from. The level of inefficiency and incompetence is startling.
I am trying to figure out the source of Deputy Shatter's rumour.
We now move to the next question.
Deputy Shatter is not from the decentralisation wing of Fine Gael. There are a few wings in the party on this issue.
I am from the efficiency wing of the Fine Gael party. We would like to see competent Government and the Fianna Fáil Party on this side of the House, as would many people protesting outside this House.
Deputy Shatter, please.
In what is known as an invitation to treat, I merely took up——
Did I hit a nerve? In every other respect, the Deputy is impressing his leader but not on that one.
The Taoiseach is running out of people to impress.
Benchmarking Awards.
Enda Kenny
Ceist:3 Deputy Enda Kenny asked the Taoiseach the cost which has accrued to his Department in respect of the payment of the benchmarking pay awards; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [30633/09]
There have been two reports from the public service benchmarking body. The increases recommended in the first report of the body were implemented in my Department in the following manner: the first 25% of the recommended increase was paid in June 2003 with effect from 1 December 2001. The total cost to December 2003 was approximately €405,000. A further 50% of the recommended increase was paid from 1 January 2004 at an approximate cost of €491,000 for that year. The final 25% of the recommended increase was paid from 1 June 2005 at an approximate cost of €150,000 for that year. The annual cost of full implementation is approximately €900,000.
The second report of the public service benchmarking body recommended an increase of 1.1% for the grade of principal officer. No other increase was recommended in respect of general Civil Service grades. No payment has been made to date by my Department in respect of this recommendation, the estimated annual cost of which to my Department would be €26,000.
Pay increases recommended by the public service benchmarking body are conditional on delivery of real and verifiable outputs regarding modernisation and flexibility.
In the talks that will begin tomorrow with the social partners and trade union leaders does the Government intend to put on the table a plan for a more efficient public service? As everyone understands the system has strangled initiative in many ways and as the Taoiseach will meet union leaders tomorrow, does the Government have a plan to introduce or bring about a more effective and efficient public service? Is the question of a reverse benchmarking process being discussed by the Government and with the trade unions? A reverse benchmarking process could apply in achieving marked efficiencies. Is this issue being discussed by the Government and with the trade unions?
Talks are ongoing; they are not beginning tomorrow. As the Deputy is aware, they are on the basis of the trade unions' indication that they believe policy options are available to the Government for the purposes of achieving necessary savings next year in the public service pay bill. Obviously, the Government has been in discussions with the trade unions on various data and policy issues that arise and these discussions will continue tomorrow. In the context of the ongoing discussions and against the background of the agenda to transform public services being the means by which the Government can look to progress in transforming public services and providing a template for public service reform, the Government has indicated, at the unions' request and through documentation, its vision for the public service in the medium and longer term.
I will illustrate my next question with an anecdote. I was contacted recently by an employer who had applied to the Department of Social and Family Affairs for optical benefit for one of his employees. The employer was obliged to fill in an A4 page containing a series of questions that took approximately eight minutes to answer. It then was necessary to post the A4 page to the Department where it was sent to the relevant section. It took a number of days before it reached the relevant person who reprocessed the questions on the A4 page and input the data into the system in order that the application for optical benefit would be considered. My point is that all of this information was contained on the P35 form submitted previously by the employer. Six years ago I noted that were the benchmarking awards to be paid at the then cost of €1 billion, the Government should have seen to it that efficiencies were achieved as a consequence. This story is typical of hundreds of thousands of cases in a system that is inefficient, costs money, incurs delays and not in the best interests of either the employee or the customer. With hindsight, does the Taoiseach believe it was a good idea to pay the benchmarking money without securing benchmarks for efficiency in a public service that is so critical to so many aspects of Irish life? Was it a good idea to pay it without requiring any efficiencies for extra benefit for the customer?
Pay increases recommended under that process were conditional on real and verifiable outputs with regard to modernisation and flexibility. There were conditions attached to the payment. In some cases where there was a delay in agreed modernisation or flexibility was not forthcoming, the payments were also delayed until such time as that was delivered. It is not right to say there was no conditionality attached to the process. What is clear, however, is that there is a need and an opportunity to accelerate change in how we deliver our public services for the benefit of citizens who require them, based on both the financial realities we must now contend with and in the interests of enabling and empowering those who are involved in the work of providing public services being able to do so as cost effectively and efficiently as possible, incorporating best practice in every respect and consistent with the principles of public accountability. That is an ongoing process that will have to be accelerated. Taking on the challenge of that change is not easy or simple but it must be pursued, and it is better to proceed with it on the basis of agreement that everybody has the shared objective of providing public services in this country by giving the best possible value to the taxpayer.
The Deputy mentioned an anecdote related to him recently. The question of being able to share information and providing the necessary technology for transferring information across the system in a consistent way, which is also consistent with data protection issues, is on the agenda. Some progress has been made, although it is greater in some Departments than in others. Good examples in that respect are the Revenue Commissioners, the Department of Social and Family Affairs and the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. There has been a transformation in those Departments and offices in recent years in terms of the ability to provide very substantive payments on an ongoing basis, on time and directly to the people entitled to the payments. The need to provide that best practice model across the system and to share the information in a way that would lessen the amount of time required for information to be collated and dealt with by individual Departments or service providers is something we must examine.
I was referring to the Department of Social and Family Affairs. My apologies for my mistake. Is the Taoiseach confident that in the discussions he is recommencing tomorrow with the trades union leaders he can arrive at a position where further industrial action will be averted? Does he, on behalf of the Government, have a plan that can convince the trades unions and the social partnership that it is possible to bring about a leaner, more efficient public service? Is he happy he will be able to convince them that what he proposes is actually workable and will achieve a more efficient and reliable public service in the interests of all the people?
It is a challenging agenda for all sides, both management and staff. I believe the discussions have been entered into in good faith. There is an understanding and recognition of the Government's position in terms of the financial realities with which we must deal. Obviously, there is limited time available to see whether the basis of an agreement is possible. The Government has decisions to take, by 9 December next at the latest. The discussions we are having are at the suggestion of the trades unions and are examining policy options that would provide the savings while at the same time providing us with a means to proceed with a process of reform that will meet the existing commitments that all parties entered into agreement about in the Towards 2016 document.
Is it the Government's intention to reach agreement with the public service trade unions on issues relating to pay, reorganisation and reform in the public service prior to the budget? I heard on the lunchtime radio news that the public service unions had committed themselves to a second day of industrial action on 3 December. Is it the Government's intention to try to conclude an agreement with the unions prior to that date? If, as the Taoiseach acknowledges, the public service is in need of the reorganisation and reform that require major decisions to be made, what has the Government been doing for the last 12 years that these reforms have not been achieved before now? Will the Taoiseach confirm whether the report of the review body on higher remuneration has been received by the Government? Has it been considered by the Government and what decision has been made on it? What is recommended in the report in respect of remuneration?
On the third point, that issue has not yet been considered by the Government. It is being examined in the Department of Finance and has not yet been brought before the Government.
On the first issue raised by the Deputy, the objective of the Government is to proceed, if possible, on the basis of an agreement that meets the economic and financial objectives we have set. In respect of what has been happening in the last 12 years, many initiatives have been taken on the modernisation of various parts of the public service. Some have met with far more success than others. Those where there has been success are a very good indicator of what is possible when there is good, motivated management with good staff representation that can recognise where the organisation needs to go, that the most important people are the citizens whom we serve and that the service should be responsive and flexible enough to meet the needs of citizens, which can vary from time to time throughout a citizen's life depending on what public service is involved. The need for flexibility, to move beyond organisational boundaries and achieve a joint working approach in a team effort, regardless of where people are employed, to maximise the service, given that we have limited resources, is absolutely critical. Where this has happened, many such services have moved from crisis management mode to a totally different situation, where there is far more satisfaction, both for the organisation in terms of how it is perceived by the public and for those who work in it.
Change should be seen as a positive prospect. To see it as something negative to be postponed or not proceeded with in a joint effort is an approach that does not meet the requirements of our current situation or at any time. Change is a constant for many organisations. It is certainly the situation in the private sector and must be so for the public sector. For those of us interested in seeing the public sector continue to play its role, it is about a public sector which is responsive, flexible and understands the need for the changes that must take place. These changes are outlined in the transforming public services programme. It is a very good context and background against which much good work can be done if people put their minds to it. The context for this to happen will be based on the discussions we are having.
I have always made the point that it is better to proceed by agreement. However, at the same time, the Government has its responsibilities to discharge and it will do so. The question of what dates are set for strikes will not dictate the Government's position. The objective merits of the situation require that we proceed and to do so on an agreed basis is preferable once we meet the objectives we are talking about. Everyone recognises that the financial situation of the country is such that those objectives have to be met.
The Taoiseach said that a number of agencies and offices in the public sector have achieved reforms, reorganisation and efficiencies. Will that be factored into future measures that might be taken generally in the public service?
I refer to the benchmarking exercise. He will recall that the greatest dissatisfaction about the benchmarking process related to the secrecy that surrounded it. The idea was that posts in the public service would be benchmarked against similar posts outside the public service, yet nobody could ever say what exactly was benchmarked against what, what external comparators were used, what levels of salary, remuneration and so on applied and what was the basis for the benchmarking. If there is a reverse benchmarking exercise, as suggested by Deputy Kenny, can the Taoiseach assure the House that the next time round the full information will be made public in order that the comparisons made will be fully known? People would then be able to outline that a particular post was measured against a particular range of posts elsewhere, the salaries and remuneration packages that apply to these posts and why these comparisons are being made. The last time round all that was made publicly available was the outcome, which was increases in pay, but the rationale and the comparisons done were never made known to anybody.
That was the criticism that attended the first benchmarking process where we were initiating a process and seeking to provide confidence in the system, but the second benchmarking process was more transparent regarding its terms of reference and information on comparators. The report confirms that; it was a learning exercise in that respect. The purpose was always that the public service would not lead wage trends in the private sector but, instead, follow them. The ongoing discussions with the unions in respect of this is on the basis of the new economic and financial realities we are facing. I have acknowledged the fact that during the year the Government had to take decisions involving a pension levy of approximately 6.9% from the overall pay of public servants towards public service pensions provision in the future. That has been acknowledged but in 2010 a particular will arise, which must be dealt with. We are in bona fide discussions with staff representatives on that issue.
The Deputy mentioned the strike. I am disappointed there is any strike. While one is in discussions with people, it is far better to conduct the discussions and it will not be any different in respect of what the issues are tomorrow no more than it was yesterday or today or any other day. It is necessary to focus on the specifics of the issue in front of us to see if it is possible to find a basis of any agreement that addresses both the short-term issue and also provides a means by which an accelerated change programme would be the feature of the coming years in order that we can implement the transforming public services agenda, which provides a good and detailed context in which such discussions could take place.
Agreements with Members.
Enda Kenny
Ceist:4 Deputy Enda Kenny asked the Taoiseach the nature of the agreement between the Government and a Deputy (details supplied); and if he will make a statement on the matter. [30635/09]
Enda Kenny
Ceist:5 Deputy Enda Kenny asked the Taoiseach the nature of the agreement between the Government and a Deputy (details supplied); and if he will make a statement on the matter. [30636/09]
Enda Kenny
Ceist:6 Deputy Enda Kenny asked the Taoiseach the arrangements in place in his office for providing special assistance for certain Independent Members of Dáil Éireann; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [30637/09]
Eamon Gilmore
Ceist:7 Deputy Eamon Gilmore asked the Taoiseach the nature of the arrangement in his Department for providing special assistance for certain Independent Deputies supporting the Government; the Deputies benefitting from this arrangement; the estimated cost of the service; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [41722/09]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 4 to 7, inclusive, together.
These are political agreements that my predecessor entered into as leader of the Fianna Fáil Party with individual Independent Deputies. On becoming leader of Fianna Fáil, I confirmed to the Deputies concerned that I would continue to implement these agreements. The House is aware that such arrangements have been in place for more than 12 years. The agreements are confidential but they are, as always, based on the programme for Government which incorporates the national development plan, approved Government programmes and annual Estimates for capital and current expenditure. I have continued the practice whereby a staff member in my office assists the Government Chief Whip's office in its work in liaising with the Deputies concerned. This official meets the Deputies on a regular basis and arranges to keep them briefed on issues as they arise. The official dealing with them is an assistant principal officer and assists the Chief Whip in this matter.
This is the sort of nonsense that goes on here. We are all into accountability and transparency and holding the Government to account, yet we are asked to believe in 2009 the sovereign Government of Ireland has a secret deal with a number of Independent Deputies. I would like the Taoiseach to clear this up once and for all. Is there an unpublished deal between the Government and Deputies Lowry and Healy-Rae about which nobody else knows except members of an elite corps of the Government and the Deputies involved? When Deputy Flynn was on the Independent benches, the story was another deal had been done between the Taoiseach's predecessor and the good Deputy. This issue was raised with me recently. Is there a deal between the Government and Deputy Flynn? I would like a "Yes" or "No" answer to that question.
I do not know what the dynamics of politics in County Mayo are but every member of the Fianna Fáil parliamentary party supports the Government in office unconditionally and without question.
Therefore, none of them is more equal than others.
That would never be the case in this party. It is an old republican principle we have practised for a long time.
What about the other two Deputies?
That is a political agreement. The Deputy will have found that when one is trying to secure a majority on a county council or coming into a new Dáil and one has not had a chance to form a Government, political agreements are reached. These agreements are based on the programme for Government, on which basis the support of the Deputies is available to the Government. That has been the arrangement all of the time.
The Taoiseach has said the agreements with the Independent Deputies are based on the programme for Government which was revised recently. Were they revised in line with the revision of the programme for Government? To which Deputies do the agreements now apply? Did members of the McCarthy group have access to the agreements? Did they give consideration to their contents in their review of expenditure in the public sector?
No, they were not asked to second guess political agreements between parties. That would be an unusual precedent to set, as the Deputy will be aware. The agreements, which continue, were put in place on the formation of the Government in 2007. Deputies Lowry and Healy-Rae have those understandings which we will seek to honour in mutually supportive fashion.
The Taoiseach said the agreements were entered into in 2007. My recollection is that the agreements entered into in 2007 concerned four Deputies. These were Deputies Jackie Healy-Rae, Michael Lowry, Finian McGrath and Beverly Flynn. With which Deputies is there a current agreement? Do the agreements cover any matter of public expenditure?
I have just outlined that Deputies Lowry and Healy-Rae, who support the Government, have an agreement with it. There was an agreement with Deputy Finian McGrath relevant to his support of the Government. He withdrew support for the Government and therefore no arrangements arise. The matter depends on support for the Government and this is usually the way it works. The day a Deputy withdraws support for a government, he or she will find there will be no support from it.
Does the agreement with Deputy Lowry in any way cover the recent announcement he made in respect of the establishment of some type of a casino development in Tipperary?
I do not get into the details of these agreements but that issue post-dates any agreement made at the time.
Does the Taoiseach intend to enact any new legislation to provide for casinos to facilitate the project announced by Deputy Lowry?
The matter should be addressed to the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform.
The Taoiseach did not reply to one part of my earlier question. I asked him if the agreements covered any aspect of public expenditure and I do not recall him replying to it.
Any political agreements are subject to understandings about various policy matters which the Government is prepared to proceed with and which have the support and agreement of any Deputy supporting the Government. This is about people representing their areas in respect of Government policy. At the time the Government was formed, it was possible to enter into political agreements with those Deputies consistent with the Government's objectives.
Ministerial Appointments.
Enda Kenny
Ceist:8 Deputy Enda Kenny asked the Taoiseach the responsibilities of the Ministers of State at his Department; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [30638/09]
Eamon Gilmore
Ceist:9 Deputy Eamon Gilmore asked the Taoiseach the responsibilities of the Ministers of State at his Department; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [32530/09]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 8 and 9 together.
On 22 April 2009, the Government appointed Deputy Pat Carey as Government Chief Whip and Minister of State at my Department and at the Department of Defence; and Deputy Dick Roche as Minister of State at my Department and at the Department of Foreign Affairs with special responsibility for European affairs.
As Chief Whip, the Minister of State, Deputy Pat Carey, is primarily responsible for the organisation of Government business in the Dáil and for the Government's programme for Dáil reform. He also oversees the preparation of the Government's legislative programme. I have also assigned responsibility for the active citizenship initiative in my Department to the Minister of State, Deputy Carey. The role of the Minister of State will be to drive the initiative forward, oversee the implementation of the recommendations of the task force on active citizenship and, critically, promote the concept of active citizenship in all spheres of Irish life. The Minister of State, Deputy Carey, will be supported in this work by a steering group chaired by Ms Mary Davis. In addition, my statutory functions relating to the Central Statistics Office have been delegated to the Minister of State, Deputy Carey.
In my Department, the Minister of State, Deputy Dick Roche, chairs an interdepartmental co-ordinating committee on European Union affairs. The committee keeps under review and works to ensure coherence on the full range of issues on the EU's agenda. The committee has a particular focus on the correct and timely transposition of EU legislation.
In addition to these duties, the Minister of State, Deputy Roche, represents the Government at a wide range of EU and international meetings. He plays a central role in consolidating and further developing Ireland's bilateral relations with EU member states. He also plays a key role in communicating the importance of the European Union to Ireland and thus fostering enhanced public understanding of EU issues.
As always, questions on the functions of particular Ministers of State in other Departments should be tabled to the relevant Ministers.
Is it intended to change the Ministers and Secretaries (Ministers of State) Act 2007 to reduce the numbers of Ministers of State? The Taoiseach is aware that Deputy Shatter published a Private Members' Bill allowing for a reduction of numbers to 12. The Government has reduced the number to 15 but this does not restrict it in increasing it again to what it was. Is the current number permanent or is it intended to go below it? Will there be legal effect through changing the Ministers and Secretaries (Ministers of State) Act 2007?
I have no immediate plans in that regard. Political decisions were taken during the course of the year as part of our response to the emerging financial position. I regard the work done by Ministers of State as important; it is not only supplementary to the work of Ministers, as they carry out work which is important for the Government and the general public in their delegated duties.
Concern has been expressed in the House on a number of occasions about the practice which has developed, whereby a rota for Ministers of State seems to be in operation for the Adjournment Debate. One Minister of State may come into the House to read a script for three or four Departments, depending on the questions asked. At a minimum, I ask that a Minister or Minister of State from the relevant Department deliver the reply to an Adjournment Debate.
The objective should be, where possible, to have a Minister or Minister of State from the relevant Department but that is not always possible. It is a question of Dáil reform as to when these matters might be taken during the course of the parliamentary day.