Enda Kenny
Ceist:1 Deputy Enda Kenny asked the Taoiseach the number of staff in his Department who have applied for relocation under the decentralisation programme; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [8786/10]
Ceisteanna — Questions.
Decentralisation Programme.
Eamon Gilmore
Ceist:2 Deputy Eamon Gilmore asked the Taoiseach the number of staff in his Department, broken down by grade, who have applied for relocation under the decentralisation programme; the number of such persons who have been relocated; the number that he expects will be relocated; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [11247/10]
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin
Ceist:3 Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach the position regarding the decentralisation programme in his Department; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [11528/10]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 to 3, inclusive, together.
Of the 164 civil servants serving in my Department, 31 have applied through the central applications facility to relocate under the decentralisation programme. The breakdown by grade is, assistant principal, seven; higher executive officer, four; administrative officer, three; executive officer, five; staff officer, one; and clerical officer, 11. Some 31 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.
Does the Taoiseach have information on the 31 people who have applied to the Central Applications Facility to move from his Department? Does he know what Departments they have expressed a preference for in their applications?
No, I do not have that information.
What is the status of the 35 locations which are to be reviewed next year? The Taoiseach is aware that on foot of a decentralisation implementation group report, authorisation was given for decentralisation to go ahead at certain locations, with other locations to be reviewed in 2011. What is the status of that review?
Detailed questions on policy positions and issues regarding individual locations should be referred to the Department of Finance, which handles this matter. The general position is as outlined by Deputy Kenny. There are locations which are being proceeded with. It has been announced that other locations will be reviewed in 2011.
In light of the manner in which the categories and numbers may stack up, does the Taoiseach believe that the 2011 review will result in any of these locations being approved? Given the current constraints on spending, does he believe decentralisation will go ahead at those locations? I would like to bring a symptom of this botched decentralisation plan to his attention. The Office of Public Works has been relocated to Trim, County Meath. I fully respect that. Every weekday, a bus leaves Dublin Castle to bring OPW staff to work in Trim. It brings them back to Dublin Castle in the evening.
We cannot go into such detail.
That adds two hours to the daily travel of staff. The total cost of the development of the Trim site was €37.5 million. The site cost €5 million and the construction of the OPW facility cost €32 million. The OPW office in St. Stephen's Green has not yet been vacated because a large cohort of staff, including four of the six principal architects, do not want to relocate. It was intended that a further 180 staff would move to Kanturk andClaremorris, although a final decision on the matter has been deferred until next year.
The matter being discussed by the Deputy would be more appropriate for the Minister for Finance.
Some staff from the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform will move into the OPW building in 2010, which will save €1.5 million. At a time when we are all talking about environmental savings, etc., is the Taoiseach happy that a bus leaves Dublin Castle every morning to go up and down to Trim? Does the Taoiseach consider that to be satisfactory?
The Deputy should really submit a question on this matter to the Minister for Finance.
Does the Ceann Comhairle want to give me guidance on the kind of questions I should be asking?
We are getting into detail.
The Deputy should ask about matters that are relevant to the Taoiseach.
We are on Taoiseach's questions.
I am asking the Head of Government about the status of the 2011 review. I have mentioned a symptom of bad planning in respect of decentralisation to County Meath. I respect the staff of the Office of Public Works, who do a very good job in the work that they do. I will mention another example. The former Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs, Deputy Ó Cuív, agreed that the Department should be relocated to Knock Airport. Planning went ahead and was agreed. An objection was made by An Bord Pleanála but it was knocked. Knock, knock. As a sort of medium-term solution, the Minister transferred the staff in question to Tubbercurry, in a warehouse that is unsuitable according to today's standards. It then agreed that they should go to Charlestown.
Could we have a question, please?
Nothing has happened there. There is a vacant building in Kiltimagh which was built for office purposes, where there are considerable savings to be made. These are issues which we rarely have time to articulate in the House. It seems as if the implementation review group needs to do a lot of work. There are major anomalies and ill-thought out situations now becoming very obvious under the decentralisation programme. In respect of that kind of situation, is the implementation group hearing observations about how things are not working and how they may be able to work better?
I cannot comment on specific cases. Before the decentralisation programme, a substantial amount of commuting was done by people who travelled long distances. It is now very much offset by the fact that there are decentralised offices in other parts of the country. People who have to come to Dublin or live here can now return to and work from home. That greatly offsets any examples the Deputy may be able to provide about people who may have to travel in the other direction. It has been a reality for many people in the public service, regardless of whether it is decentralised.
I again point out that the property costs have been offset by savings and reallocations of property by the Office of Public Works to other schemes. I understand, from the previous replies which have been given, that has been more than offset. The Department of Finance can outline the exact information on all schemes.
The Western Development Commission did a study on the beneficial impact of decentralised offices in various parts of the country, in particular the west. It noted the economic impact of relocation of the jobs to the western region as being positive and significant. Public sector employees have taken up opportunities to relocate to the western region for quality of life issues, in particular the many benefits realised by easier commuting to work. The western region offers many advantages in terms of cost savings and benefits from living within a close community, being closer to family and living in a rural location.
The wider impacts in Tubbercurry were also deemed to be significant and the relocation of that Department has raised the profile of the area and encouraged new business. Those who work in the general community development area would not agree with the Deputy.
I have a final point. While I respect the findings of that report, without being parochial is a decision likely to be made in respect of the Charlestown position? The former Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs made a decision to move the Department to Knock. It was refused by the planning appeals board. He did send them to Tubbercurry. There is a limbo operating at the moment. If the Taoiseach does not have the information now he might send it on to me. Is a decision likely to be made in respect of the commitment given by the former Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs in respect of the location in Charlestown? Will it now go into the 2011 review? The numbers——
Deputy, you can submit a parliamentary question.
——and statistics stacked up for that location but it was not his fault that it did not go ahead at the location he had intended. It was knocked by An Bord Pleanála in the same way it knocked the N26.
It is a detailed question and the specifics will have to come from the Department of Finance.
On the last occasion we had this round of questions I asked the Taoiseach if he could give any breakdown for the total number of people who have been decentralised to date, compared to those who had moved from Dublin to a location outside it, and those who had moved from one location outside Dublin to another. On that occasion the Taoiseach undertook to make some inquiries. Is he in a position to tell the House the breakdown of those two categories?
In his reply to Deputy Kenny the Taoiseach indicated that savings were made as a result of the decentralisation process. Has an overall assessment been made of the total cost of decentralisation to date and the total savings that have been made? Can he provide that information to the House?
Who pays for the bus that leaves Dublin Castle every day at 8 a.m. for Trim and returns at 5 p.m., while apparently also doing a trip in between for staff who have to attend meetings in Dublin in the course of their work, which was referred to by Deputy Kenny?
How much vacant property in the State has been earmarked for decentralisation——
The Deputy is going into detail and a parliamentary question will elicit the information.
I am asking a parliamentary question of the Taoiseach.
To the line Minister, which is the Minister for Finance.
He is the Head of Government. How much vacant property in the country is awaiting decanted staff and decentralised offices? There is no sign of them and we are awaiting the review in 2011. I would like a general, ball park figure, not the exact number of square metres.
The Deputy is an experienced parliamentarian. The questions on decentralisation tabled to my Department relate to my Department. The Department with responsibility and with all the information and wider detail on this, as he knows, is the Department of Finance. I recall when I was in that Department the Deputy had many questions to ask when I had the information in front of me. The fact that one is Taoiseach does not mean one is involved in the running of every Department.
Charlie did.
No, he did not, in fairness to him.
What about the cost of the bus?
The cost of the bus is not covered in the supplementary information either. The ability to anticipate goes way beyond my expectations.
It has been a feature of how the service has been, is and probably will be organised in the future where people commute long distances to hold down jobs in the public service. Decentralisation has provided a welcome opportunity for many people, both those from Dublin who wished to return to the city or those who wished to go to a part of the country they had not inhabited in the past. Everyone I have met at various times in whatever capacity has been happy with the relocations that took place. The OPW has provided workplace environments comparable to any one would expect anywhere and it has, in many cases, improved the work environment for staff who had to operate in less suitable surroundings in the past, which is one of the reasons the decentralisation process was undertaken.
In this phase of the programme, approximately 4,000 people will be relocated with 3,100 having been relocated so far. Due to the change in the financial situation, a review is to take place regarding the remaining staff who were not in the process of being moved in this phase. The review will take place in 2011. Decentralisation has taken place to almost 40 locations to date. Full completion of the projects under way and approved will result in approximately 4,000 moves overall. The moves to Buncrana, County Donegal, and Trim, County Meath, are under way.
The Wexford building for the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government has been finished and the transfer of staff from the existing advance office in Wexford has commenced. During this month, staff based in Dublin moved to Wexford. It is expected that the Newbridge building for the Department of Defence will be completed by the end of May or early June and staff moves will commence shortly thereafter. The project in Roscommon town has just commenced and it is hoped projects in Tipperary town, where a preferred tender has been selected, and Portlaoise will commence this year. The total expenditure on the property aspects of the programme to the end of December last year was €338 million. That amount is comprised of the cost of the sites, property acquisition, fit-out works and rent of approximately €330 million expended by the Office of Public Works, OPW, together with €7 million incurred directly in respect of property costs by other organisations. Approximately €17.7 million has been spent to the end of last year on the cost of renting and fitting out properties in advance party locations. Staff in such locations will remain in place or move to permanent accommodation under the programme.
The property costs have been offset by savings in the reallocation of property by the OPW to other schemes at the end of 2008 valued in the region of €550 million. Of that amount more than €350 million relates to the disposal of high-value sites at the height of the property market. The potential for future receipts is more limited. In addition, property valued at €75 million was transferred to the affordable homes partnership. The OPW has also agreed joint venture development schemes with a value of approximately €125 million subject to volatility in the property market.
As expected, non-property costs are being provided as more advance accommodation is in place, staff training is increased and the moves have taken place. Total expenditure on non-property costs at the end of September 2009 for all decentralising organisations was approximately €15 million. The spend to date on staffing costs according to the OPW on the property aspects of the programme was €12.6 million. That is as much information as I have on that aspect of the matter.
I thank the Taoiseach for providing the House with information on the total cost of decentralisation. I was trying to follow the figures as he outlined them. If I am correct, a ballpark figure for total cost to date is somewhere between €700 million and €750 million but perhaps I missed something. The supplementary I asked was whether the Taoiseach could give a figure for total costs to date.
If the Deputy submitted the parliamentary question to the Minister for Finance the information could be provided.
The Taoiseach has just provided it.
Yes, but in much more detail. The Minister could have given a much more refined answer.
I am sorry I was not as quick with my sums as you would have liked, a Cheann Comhairle. I was asking the Taoiseach to help by providing the total figure if he has it.
If I understand correctly, the Taoiseach informed us that a total number of approximately 4,000 staff have been decentralised to date. How many of them have moved from Dublin to a non-Dublin location and how many moved from one non-Dublin location to another non-Dublin location? My original inquiry is what is the breakdown in that regard?
I do not have that sort of information. The purpose of the decentralisation programme was to provide people with opportunities. For some, it involves a change of location. For others, it involves a change of Department. In some cases it will involve moving from one Department to another within the city while others might have availed of promotional opportunities and moved down the country. The bottom line is that over the period in question, 4,000 people will be relocated under the first phase of the decentralisation programme. Currently, approximately 3,100 staff are in situ.
Noting that a review of the decentralisation programme is scheduled for next year, 2011, has there been an overall assessment of the success or otherwise of the relocations that have taken place since the programme was first announced by the then Minister for Finance, Charlie McCreevy? If I recall correctly, there were two particular pillars behind the proposition; one was to aid the objective of offering a boost or an impetus to local economies in towns and cities elsewhere in the State than Dublin and, second, by the transfer of a significant number of public servants that there would be some impact in terms of congestion in the city of Dublin. By transferring a significant number of public servants, there was to be some impact on congestion in the city of Dublin.
With regard to the success or otherwise under either measure, or any other measures that may have been highlighted but which I cannot recall, has there been any assessment made over the period in question? If I interpreted the Taoiseach's reply correctly, he indicated that in the order of 4,000 relocations have taken place. Have there been any relocations associated directly with his Department over the period in question?
With regard to relocations pertaining to any area of my Department under the programme, there are 31 staff with applications in the central applications facility who are available to relocate, subject to the usual criteria. There have been a number of reports. The decentralisation implementation group has provided a series of reports updating the information on the progress being made, the issues that arise and the constraints and difficulties that have been encountered. As the Deputy is aware, industrial relations issues arose that deferred the speedy implementation of the programme. It was always a voluntary programme and issues must be dealt with as they arise.
As a result of the deteriorating financial situation generally in the country, a review was announced in terms of proceeding with the existing phase involving 4,000 relocations and considering the situation thereafter. That review, to be conducted by the Department of Finance, will give us an opportunity in 2011 to determine the position at that stage.
The original programme was highly ambitious and included State agencies. Industrial relations problems arose but the State agency issues have been deferred until the review takes place. There are many things happening.
When talking about the benefits of the programme, one should note decentralisation can provide good-quality jobs for the regions. Existing civil servants who wish to leave Dublin are facilitated to do so if they want to do so for career or other reasons. There is a wider range of work and career opportunities for civil servants already working outside Dublin as a result of the programme. Thus, there is greater choice and greater opportunities for promotion. Present and future civil servants who aspire to senior management positions will no longer have to migrate necessarily to the capital although many will continue to do so.
The dispersal of jobs has obvious advantages in terms of securing a better regional balance. It helps the economic and social development of chosen centres and their catchment areas and provides a further boost in the provision of infrastructure in the regions. It can also attract other investments and services and act as an incentive to entrepreneurs to develop businesses in the regions, thus creating a positive domino effect. Public service decentralisation offers some distinct benefits that other similarly sized investment projects might not deliver, such as the potential to become a national policy-making location.
With regard to the decentralisation programme over the past couple of years, particularly over the past 18 months, one detects there is a slowing up in the roll-out of the proposals across the various Departments and State agencies. Will the Taoiseach indicate whether there are actual proposals, announced previously in this Chamber and elsewhere, that are currently suspended because of the current economic difficulties we are all facing? If he is in a position to answer this, will he state whether there is a timeframe within which any of those suspended or deferred proposals may be considered for reassessment, re-introduction or reactivation?
As I said earlier, moves to Buncrana and Trim are under way at present. I have given the update on the Wexford situation and Newbridge, and the projects in Roscommon town, Tipperary town and Portlaoise are ongoing. Advance teams were sent to two locations where the buildings were not yet ready. Such advance teams are, in themselves, viable and may be augmented in the future as required if there is a demand or if this suits the manner in which the programme should be rolled out.
State agencies account for about 2,300 or 20% of the programme in terms of numbers. The pace has been slow here, with a number of inter-related factors serving to frustrate progress. However, much progress has been made and many creative solutions have been found to ensure that decentralisation can proceed, and indeed to meet staff demand in terms of those who wish to relocate as soon as possible and are prepared to look positively at interim solutions pending the full programme being rolled out in their particular location.
Departmental Programmes.
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin
Ceist:4 Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the progress of the organisational review programme; the Departments and agencies reviewed under this programme to date; the action he will take arising from these reviews; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [9947/10]
Richard Bruton
Ceist:5 Deputy Richard Bruton asked the Taoiseach the Departments which have so far been critiqued by the organisational review programme unit; if the Department of Finance has been reviewed as to its effectiveness regarding core objectives such as stable public finances, banking and public service reform. [9941/10]
Eamon Gilmore
Ceist:6 Deputy Eamon Gilmore asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on the work to date being carried out by his Department under the organisational review programme. [11248/10]
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin
Ceist:7 Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach if an assessment of the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions has been carried out under the organisational review programme; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [11527/10]
Enda Kenny
Ceist:8 Deputy Enda Kenny asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the progress of the operational review programme unit; the Departments that have been reviewed to date in 2010; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [12960/10]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 4 to 8, inclusive, together.
The first and pilot phase of the organisational review programme, ORP, involved the undertaking of comprehensive reviews of the capacities of three Departments, with particular reference to strategy, managing delivery and evaluation, and the production by them of follow-up action plans. The Departments reviewed were Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Enterprise, Trade and Employment and Transport.
The first phase was completed in November 2008 with the publication of a composite report which was lodged in the Oireachtas Library. The report includes the findings on each Department, the follow-up action plans prepared by them and a chapter on the challenges for the wider Civil Service arising from the research. The second phase of reviews under the organisational review programme is now nearing completion. This phase involves detailed examination of the capacities of four further Government organisations, the Department of Health and Children, the Central Statistics Office, the Property Registration Authority and the Office of the Revenue Commissioners. The review of Revenue is almost finalised and the other three reviews have been completed.
The current position is that the management boards of the Department of Health and Children, the Central Statistics Office and the Property Registration Authority are working on follow-up action plans. I expect that these plans, along with that from Revenue, will be completed in around four to six weeks. A composite report, containing the findings on each organisation and their follow-up action plans, will be published shortly afterwards, following consideration by Government. Regarding the third and next phase of reviews, preparatory work is already under way. The capacities of another four Departments will be examined, namely, the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Education and Science, Foreign Affairs and my own Department. I expect these reviews and the associated action plans to be completed by the end of the year.
Regarding the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, a review under the ORP has not yet been carried out. Regarding a review of the Department of Finance, a decision has yet to be made on the organisations to be included in the fourth phase of ORP reviews which are due to commence at the end of this year. Deputies can be assured that the ORP reviews constitute very thorough examinations of the capacities of Government Departments and offices. They involve considerable stakeholder engagement and, in that regard, I would like to record my appreciation to those members of Oireachtas committees who took the time to meet the ORP review teams and provide them with valuable input.
Before I call Deputy Ó Caoláin, there are about ten minutes left for supplementary questions. I request Deputies to refrain from asking detailed questions to the Taoiseach. Such questions should be submitted to the appropriate line Minister.
Can the Taoiseach confirm that the organisational review programme report in relation to the Department of Health and Children indicated, as is reported, that a significant number of staff are currently underworked, while another body of employees within that Department is absolutely overwhelmed with work? Would it not strike him as a serious situation if that actually is the case? It is something that should not be tolerated in any Department let alone one as critical as the Department of Health and Children.
Can the Taoiseach confirm, as is reported, that the particular report concerning that Department finds confusion among staff as to its role and the lack of clarity around who its customers are, coupled with the feeling of being constantly under fire, are factors contributing to poor morale? Can the Taoiseach confirm that this is part of the programme report on the Department? How can it be that there is confusion among staff about the Department's role? This is what the review programme report allegedly states. Can the Taoiseach specify when this issue became known? Did it coincide with the establishment of the HSE? We have not yet seen the report; when will it be published? Does the Taoiseach agree that this confusion must reflect the so-called policy — that is another debate entirely — of the Government and the Department, as espoused——
Does the Deputy have a question?
——by the Minister? If the establishment of the HSE is not the most serious contributory factor to that confusion among staff, it is certainly at least the equal of any other factor or combination of factors.
If it is the case that there are staff in the Department who are currently underworked, what actions are being taken to ensure they have a full day's engagement from when they present to when they finish their day's work? If this is not realisable through a reallocation of responsibility——
It would be better to submit a question to the Minister for Health and Children.
That would be a total waste of my time, with respect, a Cheann Comhairle. I need to ask somebody who is prepared to answer.
It would go to the HSE.
The parliamentary affairs division.
The Minister has clearly washed her hands of all responsibility and, therefore, the mess we are in.
What steps will be taken to ensure, if the report's findings are correct, that those who are currently underworked will, as a result of reallocation of responsibilities within the Department, have a full day's work? If this cannot happen within the Department, can they be redeployed to some other area, or even to the HSE? God forbid we add any more bureaucracy to that organisation.
Some of the findings of the report in question, which has not yet been published, featured in the media recently, although much of the contextual information and balancing comments did not appear in these articles, and other findings were not commented upon at all. An operational review programme is a management tool to help assess the capacity of Departments and major offices to meet challenges over the coming years. It can be used by Departments to help them improve their performance — in fact, this is the whole idea. The report has been welcomed by the Secretary General and action plans are being prepared in response. We will accept the critiques of aspects of the Department's work and see how they can be improved. Having served in that Department myself, I acknowledge that the staff show much ability and commitment in dealing with a difficult agenda.
The report identifies areas in which improvement is required, and clarifying roles and responsibilities is an important aspect of this. As in every field, it is important to have a clear objective and that management and staff are behind this. The Department is now mainly in the business of policy formation, but when I was there, before the establishment of the HSE, it also had an operational role and was trying to deal with hospital services and every other aspect of the health service on a day-to-day basis through what was then a regionalised health board system.
It must be objectively acknowledged there have been improvements, including the establishment of the National Hospitals Office and so on, and there has been an effort to pull things together to make a far more coherent and joined-up organisation. This may be seen in terms of improvements in operational performance. Of course there are service pressures and organisational problems. When one can find the right people in the right place, one sees a different level of performance in some places compared to others. That is not to say that everyone is starting from the same mark or that people have the same sets of problems but we all know the degree to which the health service is interactive between primary, secondary and tertiary care. We need good local organisational efforts as well as a centralised approach that brings clarity to the policies and enables people to get on with the job as effectively as possible.
Mention was made of managing delivery by agencies through stronger goals and output and performance measurement, as was more clearly defining customers and stakeholders and a closer alignment to serving them more appropriately. It is not a question of the Department being unaware that it exists to serve the public; it is a matter of ensuring that the many agencies and organisations which are delivering health services have a proper relationship that maximises effectiveness and allows people to work as efficiently as possible.
I do not think any review worth its salt would be able to give a clean bill of health to every organisation. If it did, it might suffer from the criticism that it was not a very rigorous or robust exercise. The review is seen as a management tool or a SWAT analysis which evaluates how services are being delivered, the extent to which the Department is fulfilling its role, its place in the delivery of services and, in this case, how one organises the services and how agencies meet their remits and responsibilities. That is the purpose of an operational review programme. Everyone in this House would rightly point to the need for periodic objective and robust exercises to assess how people are performing.
Very briefly——
We are rapidly running out of time.
This will only take a moment. In February, the Department of Health and Children indicated that it had been asked to prepare an action plan which was to be presented to the Government before the end of March or the beginning of April. Has that plan been presented now that we are in the last week of April? Will the reports of the four Departments and offices addressed by the organisational review programme be published as indicated and, if so, how soon does the Taoiseach expect their publication so that we can focus on some of the questions I raised earlier, including the serious issue of poor morale among staff in the Department of Health and Children? That has to be of serious concern to all of us.
As I said earlier, these reports are being finalised and all four will be taken together, presumably by the Government, as the second phase of the operational review programme and will be considered by the Government when the action plans are presented with the reports.
Have they been received yet?
As I have said, all four will be taken together. They involve a detailed examination of the capacities of the four organisations. The review of Revenue is almost finalised and the other three have been completed. They will be taken together by the Cabinet when the Revenue review is completed and we will take it from there.
The Taoiseach appeared to suggest in his earlier reply that the Government will not be publishing these reports until after the follow-up action plans are drawn up by the respective Departments and considered by the Government. Given that the report on the Department of Health and Children, which is pretty damning, was already published in The Irish Times, would he agree to simply publish the reports on that Department and the other three agencies considered in the first round rather than wait for the action plans to be drawn up?
In fairness to the Departments which are being asked to respond to the reports with developing action plans to deal with the issues raised, not all of the findings were reported and the context and balancing commentaries on particular findings did not feature. For that reason, it is best to await publication of the full reports and the associated action plans by the Departments, after consideration by the Government, so that people can see the full picture and what is being suggested as the response or how we will improve those areas that have been identified. People can then have an informed discussion on that basis.
In respect of the Department of Health and Children, for instance, the report by the organisational review programme stated that some people have little or nothing to do while other colleagues are overwhelmed. It mentioned high levels of sick leave, real frustration, on the back foot and uneven quality of leadership. Arising from that, is there any validity in the reports that there may well be enforced redundancies in the HSE because of the industrial dispute at present?
Who determines what Departments are covered under the organisational review programme? Why, for instance, has the Department of Finance not been included in this? Is the Department of Finance above all reproach or analysis when in recent years its reports and indications stated that the public finances were on a sound footing and that the direction ahead was clear in the national interest? Is it intended that the Department of Finance will be included under a review programme, and if so, when is that likely to be operational?
I understand that the Minister for Health and Children answered a Dáil question on this matter on 3 March last. As I stated in reply to Deputy Gilmore earlier, we should see the full report and response from the Department before coming to an informed view. It is important that these rigorous and robust exercises point up issues that must be addressed. I would expect the action plans to address any issues raised in terms of priorities in which the Department should engage and in what way it organises and gives the workloads to the various sections of the Departments, which can vary from time to time depending on what problems or issues arise.
On the Department of Finance, the fourth review will come up at the end of the year in terms of deciding what Departments will be involved. The Departments of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Education and Science, Foreign Affairs and the Taoiseach are up for consideration in this third phase. Obviously, we will look and see what Departments will be included in the next phase as well.