JOINT COMMITTEE ON FINANCE AND THE PUBLIC SERVICE díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 24 Mar 2004

Business of Joint Committee.

Chairman

Apologies have been received from Deputy Twomey and Senator Higgins. The draft minutes of the last meeting of the joint committee have been circulated. Are the minutes of the meeting of 11 March agreed? Agreed. As there are no matters arising from the minutes, we will move on to correspondence.

A number of items have been received. This is an issue we touched on at the last meeting. A further letter was received by the clerk the other day from a civil servant who requested this committee to investigate the circumstances surrounding the dissolution of a promotional panel allegedly before it was validly expired, with the alleged consequence that he was denied a promotion to which he otherwise would have been entitled. The correspondence was circulated to members yesterday.

Two letters from the correspondent were considered at the last meeting. The committee agreed on that occasion that a reply should issue to the effect that the committee cannot involve itself in the matter as its role in terms of public service is to examine policy of the Department of Finance and that it has no function in regard to the administration of the Department identified in the letters. The correspondent contacted the clerk about the reply yesterday. The letter received yesterday contains one new element. It asked the committee to investigate allegedly non-factual, misleading and contradictory replies to parliamentary questions over the past eight years. I also received a letter, as Chairman, from the correspondent yesterday in which he alleges that the practice in the Department was flawed and perhaps corrupt.

I advise members that they should not refer to the correspondent or to any person mentioned in the earlier letters by name or in such a way as to make them identifiable. I propose that a reply issue on the same terms as the one we have already issued but also stating that the committee has no role in regard to the accuracy of replies to parliamentary questions made in the Dáil by Ministers. This is an issue our committee should not get into. If people want to discuss it we will do so in private session but I do not believe it is necessary to discuss the matter any further. We should reply firmly on those lines. Is that agreed? Agreed.

The next item concerns a letter which has been received from the General Secretary of the Association of Higher Civil and Public Servants. Enclosed with the letter was a report by the association which was adopted at its recent special delegate conference on decentralisation. The General Secretary has asked the committee to meet an AHCPS deputation to hear the association's serious concerns about the Government's decentralisation programme and its impact on effective public administration. Before deciding how to proceed with this request, I would like to go into private session for a very brief period.

The joint committee went into private session at9.45 a.m. and resumed in public session at9.46 a.m.

Chairman

The issue of civil and public service decentralisation is a matter identified in our draft work programme and one for examination by the committee. I believe, however, we should deal with it in a structured way that allows the committee to hear a range of views on the issue, including the views of other public service staff associations. I propose that a reply issue to the effect that the committee would welcome an opportunity to hear the views of the AHCPS, and it will consider how best to do this in a structured way in the context of our work programme when we come to consider the decentralisation issue. I do not want to invite in one public service union on an ad hoc basis. If we are doing that as part of a work programme we should do it on a structured basis.

Deputy R. Bruton

We have been kicking this issue around for some time and we have not yet come to a conclusion as to how we will handle it. It is an issue of important public interest. I know it has become the subject of intense political debate but there are important issues the committee ought to be examining in a cool and dispassionate way. We should hear the views of the AHCPS at an early date because it is critical to its success. We should move promptly to decide the structured way we will examine decentralisation and not put it off.

Deputy Finneran

It is important that we have a debate on this issue because events are overtaking our intention to have a debate. I was glad to see that in regard to my own constituency the decision has been put in motion to acquire a site, go through the planning and tender process and decentralise the prison service to Longford town. From information I received yesterday, many of the people who have proposed sites in different locations throughout the country have already been contacted. This process is already in motion and if we want to address it we will want to do so quite soon because people are moving at a fast pace in that regard. Whatever about some of the earlier comments about political reasons or whatever, it appears there is a wish in the Civil Service regarding this matter. At all times we must express the Government view that it is a voluntary scheme.

Senator Mansergh

I would favour an early examination of this issue. I would very much welcome exchange, both to listen and to cross-examine my old colleague, Seán O'Riordan, on his views on the subject. This could be a forum where one could have some debate between the political system and civil servants about some of the reservations that have been expressed. The sooner that happens, the better.

Deputy Ó Caoláin

I raised this matter yesterday on the floor of the House by way of a priority question to the Minister for Finance. Despite the instance Deputy Finneran has just referred to, I believe the Minister is in denial about the serious matters I highlighted in regard to the recent SIPTU survey of its membership and the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment's measure of the take-up for the 250 places in Carlow. Representatives of the Combat Poverty Agency, which has been designated for relocation to Monaghan, my home town, came before the committee and advised it that there was grave concern among its members about what the relocation would entail, particularly in terms of the major resource it offers in the city, that is, the library service, which provides access for students and those doing research. None of these questions are being addressed. They are being glossed over by the Minister in an effort to press ahead regardless of anything else. Yet he contextualises all his commentary with the statement that it is all voluntary. It is imperative that we address this matter. I referred to the recent conference of the Association of Higher Civil and Public Servants. The Minister is in denial. This is an important matter.

I support the proposals for decentralisation and I look forward to seeing them effectively and efficiently organised and proceeded with. However, there is no evidence that is happening. I am talking not only about the overview of the entire proposition in terms of the 50 or more identified centres for relocation and decentralisation, but about the specific areas relating to the make-up of the propositions. The remaining elements which have yet to be determined, particularly relating to the information technology section of the Department of Social and Family Affairs and the 500 within the broader health service, must be addressed. I support Deputy Richard Bruton's contention that the committee should address this matter in a substantive way.

Chairman

I take it that the decentralisation issue is part of our work programme. I propose that the draft work programme we have prepared for the committee — it is some time since we have seen it — will be circulated to members. Do members want that to be the first, second or third item on our work programme? Members will have different views. Someone else may want to deal with something else first. Although I commented on the Association of Higher Civil and Public Servants, there are several other public sector unions. I would not like to ask every public service union to come before the committee. In the same way we did with the film industry when we dealt with section 481, we should issue an invitation to Congress rather than to one union. Perhaps the public sector union committee could bring in a delegation. We can decide that at the next meeting. We do not want to have several different hearings on similar issues. I hope the members understand my point.

Deputy Ó Caoláin

I understand that, but we should not make a mistake about this. As regards the SIPTU survey, we are talking about 1,000 workers, which is one tenth of the Minister's entire relocation proposals. We should hear what they have to say. I would not like to see that subsumed in terms of the greater mass. Another element is the ancillary staff who are not highlighted for relocation or decentralisation. The Minister gave what I regarded as a questionable response to questions I asked on this matter some time ago. The ancillary staff include cleaners and people under current contract service to all the different Departments in the city of Dublin. We are talking about at least several hundred people. There must be categoric assurances about the safety and fixity of their future employment positions.

Chairman

Contract staff are public servants.

Deputy Ó Caoláin

These are not public servants, but ancillary staff. Some of them are on contract to Departments in the city of Dublin and the relocation and decentralisation proposals have profound implications for them in terms of their employment. That is an important area which must also be addressed. It would be a travesty of justice if several hundred workers found themselves in reduced employment or out of employment as a result of this broad proposition. It is an element which cannot be forgotten while we are addressing the issue of civil servants' willingness or otherwise to take up the opportunities already announced. The committee has a responsibility to also address that matter.

Deputy Finneran

Does the Chairman have a timescale for this debate?

Chairman

No.

Deputy Finneran

We could stay talking here, while decentralisation takes place behind our backs.

Chairman

The issue is before us. I will not allow it to happen behind our backs.

Deputy Finneran

Unless we debate this issue in the near future, the public will not appreciate our in-depth discussions on it. Decentralisation has already started. It is a voluntary scheme. A site has already been identified and a public announcement made in my constituency. It will soon go to tender. The projected date for construction is the late summer. The people in other locations who met the deadline of 16 January for sites and offices have been contacted and told they are on a list which is being considered. It is all in place. Our debate must be realistic. This Government decision has already been taken and it is being implemented. I welcome the debate, but I do not want to be talking about it when the blocks are in place.

I know it is a sensitive time and the Opposition wants to create as much confusion as possible in the run-up to the local and European elections. However, we must bear in mind that it is a voluntary scheme and that no one is being forced to leave. In many cases we are talking about agencies of Departments which are moving to other locations. In some cases they will find more independence, which they will welcome. I heard the head of the Irish Prison Service say yesterday on the radio that the service will have a home for the first time. Until now it was submerged in a Department and it did not have a home of its own. The same applies to Land Registry and other agencies.

As regards the transfer of people, most public representatives have received hundreds of letters from people who want to know when decentralisation will happen. Whatever they are saying privately, they are asking questions in the constituencies. They want to be considered for a particular location and they want to know when it will happen. They want to make provision for themselves and their families. They want to move forward on that basis.

Deputy R. Bruton

The Chairman probably does not intend to open up the discussion, but we could not allow a discussion on this subject to pass. I have no doubt that what Deputy Finneran said is correct in that many people see positive bonuses in this proposal. If decentralisation is properly done, it will have positive elements. However, there are many concerns about it. The AHCPS highlighted that when it indicated that more than three and a half years from when this was first announced in budget 2000 there were no discussions of any substance with the trade unions involved and those they had ran into the sand. As the committee heard, some 64 criteria were allegedly being applied in selecting the most appropriate locations for decentralisation. In the event, however, none of them was applied. There are no working papers or papers of any sort to show how these decisions were reached.

There is a genuine fear on the part of many people that the public service is being cannibalised for a political objective, instead of examining how we can make the public service more effective in the context of decentralisation. I have serious concerns that much of the accumulated corporate memory and capacity of organisations will be dismantled. If only one in five moves, expert teams will have to be reassembled. In the case of specialist bodies, such as the Equality Authority and others, one will run the risk of dismantling the entire capability of these organisations, which will have to be reconstructed. That is a massive change which poses serious threats to the integrity of public service delivery. We should examine not just the positive elements which are real, but also the other dimensions. We need to tease out how this decision was reached, the impacts it will have and how we can mitigate some of them, perhaps by delaying some elements or suggesting improvements.

Senator Mansergh

The Government's intention was clearly outlined in the Fianna Fáil manifesto which stated that decentralisation would go to substantial and well-placed towns that had some difficulty in attracting industry. One could argue that an electoral mandate was won for that. Having been a public servant myself for over 20 years, I have a good deal of scepticism about the notion that we are in some way breaking up the integrity of the Civil Service. The truth is that what one might regard as the core Departments of any Government, including the Department of Finance and the Department of Foreign Affairs, are, in the main, staying in Dublin. What is the issue of principle in, say, moving the Department of Defence to Newbridge? I do not see it. It is within easy commuting distance from Dublin.

I noticed with wry amusement, as the Minister did in the Seanad yesterday, that the British Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Gordon Brown, is taking a leaf from the Minister for Finance's book in re-deploying 20,000 civil servants. I am afraid that the culture in Britain, even under New Labour, is different from here. Those who are moving in the UK will take a 27% drop in salary because of the loss of London allowances, and those who do not move will be declared redundant. I have not seen any debate there about the break up of the British civil service, even though Britain is a much less compact country than Ireland. I am not remotely holding out Gordon Brown's New Labour Britain as a model for us in this regard. Public servants are concerned about the way in which decentralisation is being introduced here but it is being done in a far more civilised fashion than appears to be happening across the water, where it is simply achieved by Government order.

I have no doubt about the concerns raised by Deputy Ó Caoláin. It is not as if there had not been decentralisation before. There has been much of it already. There were two programmes in the early 1990s. Many issues will have to be teased out. As we know, the link between the old and new programmes is the General Register Office, which is going to Roscommon. All these issues will have to be discussed but before one can move anywhere, one must identify sites and begin work on buildings, as Deputy Finneran said. Having compared Government offices around the country with ones of which I have experience in Dublin, the standard of such office accommodation in practically all cases will be vastly improved.

Chairman

I wish to bring discussion on this topic to a conclusion. At our next meeting we can agree the structure and date for a debate on this matter. At that stage we can deal with it in more detail. At our next meeting we will also consider the letter from the AHCPS union and how to deal with it.

The final item of correspondence is a letter received this morning by the Clerk to the Committee from the Minister of State at the Department of Finance, Deputy Parlon, regarding the background to the grant-in-aid for the refurbishment of Maynooth College's chapel. That issue arose at a previous meeting with the Minister of State. Can we note the letter?

Deputy R. Bruton

Deputy Paul McGrath took a particular interest in that matter. It would only be appropriate to refer the letter to our next meeting because he is not present. It is suggested that this decision was made on foot of oral representations, with no papers of any kind being presented in advance of the decision being taken. After the decision was made, the OPW appeared to be satisfied with it but there are issues as to whether this is standard or a good procedure for making such decisions. Deputy McGrath, who is au fait with the matter, should have an opportunity to express his views.

Chairman

Are you proposing that we should defer a discussion on this matter to the next meeting?

Deputy R. Bruton

To the next meeting, to allow Deputy Paul McGrath to comment.

Chairman

Is that agreed?

Deputy Finneran

We had a debate on this matter in 2003. I am glad to see that the Department of Finance has allocated money to get the job finished this year.

Deputy Ó Caoláin

I agree with deferring the matter so that Deputy Paul McGrath will have an opportunity to participate. However, it is important to remember the context in which this matter arose. The intention signalled originally was that the grant related to the library at Maynooth College, but it was subsequently transferred to the college chapel. There is no reference to that fact in this correspondence, which was circularised at the outset of this meeting. No further information is being offered that throws any light on the question regarding the original purpose of the grant. Did it relate to the library or the chapel? We know where it has been spent, and that expenditure is ongoing, but no information has been offered. The fact that this expenditure followed oral representations and that there is no written documentation to support it, is simply not good enough. The evidence the committee requested from the Minister has not been presented by him. The letter circularised this morning is totally inadequate, given the members' request.

Chairman

In fairness, the letter explains that there was an oral representation and that there is no documentation.

Deputy Ó Caolain

There is no reference to the original question as to how it arose in the first place.

Chairman

One cannot produce documentation if it is not there.

Senator Mansergh

We should put all of this in context. Since Deputy McCreevy became the Minister for Finance — he is now the longest serving Minister for Finance since the 1930s — he has made a number of grants towards the maintenance and refurbishment of our ecclesiastical heritage in different parts of the country, and relating to various denominations. This is one of the most enlightened programmes. I am referring to the Irish College in Paris and the vaults of Christchurch.

Deputy Ó Caoláin

We are aware of those.

Senator Mansergh

I am talking about Christchurch Cathedral.

Deputy Ó Caoláin

What about the cathedral to horses?

Senator Mansergh

That is irrelevant. It is a separate subject.

Chairman

The discussion is now closed and we will defer consideration of the reply to the letter at our next meeting. On item 3, statutory instruments, Statutory Instrument 89/2004 was laid before the House on 8 March and sent to the committee by the Department of Finance. It amends certain provisions of the European communities financial collateral arrangement regulations 2004 so as to clarify the meaning of those provisions and to give full effect to an identified directive. Under the orders of reference of the committee the committee has the power to consider such statutory instruments made by the Minister and laid before the House as it may select. The time within which the Dáil can annul statutory instruments is usually limited by statute to 21 sitting days after the regulation is laid. However, the 21 day rule does not apply in this case. The regulation must be confirmed by an Act of the Oireachtas six months after they are made or they cease to have statutory effect. Is it agreed not to consider the statutory instrument as it will be coming before the Dáil by way of an Act? We do not need to discuss it here in that case. Is that agreed? Agreed.

On EU scrutiny, the sub-committee on EU scrutiny sent the committee a list of documents and proposals considered as well as the decisions it made at its meeting on 11 March. The sub-committee has made no proposals for further scrutiny to this committee; is it agreed that none of the proposals warrant scrutiny by this committee? Agreed.

Mr. R. Bruton

Yesterday the Minister for Finance more or less invited the committee to consider the revenue powers report, which he will be implementing in next year's Finance Bill. Perhaps we should list that in our programme of work.

Chairman

We will have the work programme, which is in draft form, circulated well in advance of the next meeting so members can see the priorities. Before we move to No. 5, the presentation by the Minister of State, I remind members that following the presentation we will have a presentation by officials on document 613/2003, which deals with the mergers directive.

Deputy Ó Caoláin

Leaders' Questions is at 10.30 a.m., which means I will not be able to remain for the rest of the committee meeting as I have the responsibility for Leaders' Questions this morning on behalf of the Technical Group. This kind of clash has been highlighted many times, including by Deputy Burton. I regret I cannot remain to participate.

Chairman

This is not a normal scheduled meeting time on Wednesdays but we have been requested by the Dáil to deal with an issue by tomorrow. The Dáil did not meet last week which is why we have met out of our normal slot. We met earlier to get this done.

Deputy Ó Caoláin

I apologise. I cannot remain and hope people understand.

Chairman

We appreciate that.