On behalf of the Association of Chief Executives of State Agencies, I thank the committee for the opportunity to present the issues which we submitted to the Government committee on the implementation of the decentralisation programme. I am not the chief executive of the association. We do not have a chief executive. I am the current chair of the association.
We are an association of chief executive officers of just over 60 State agencies. Our agencies together employ an estimated 6,000 people. We are responsible for a broad range of services to the general public, to client groups and to other public and private bodies. We have given the committee a list of the names of the chief executives who are members and their agencies.
The association plays an active role in helping to bring the overall perspective of State agencies to bear on the national public policy agenda and to inform our members of developments in public policy which affect their agencies. For example, we played a leading role, with the support of the Institute of Public Administration, in publishing an on-board guide which is now the standard reference work for corporate government in public agencies. We have also been active in liaising with the Department of Finance on the modernisation agenda, Sustaining Progress and the implementation of the Mullarkey report as it affects State agencies. This will give the committee a flavour of the kind of things in which we have been involved.
Nineteen of the member agencies were included in the Government's decentralisation programme announced last December. A further 11 organisations in the health sector are affected by the relocation proposals but, since we made our submission, there has been a decision to deal with them separately so I will not refer to them again.
State agencies were established by Government to carry out specialist functions. As a result of the recognition of the particular purpose to be achieved, we were established to carry out a particular purpose with the necessary freedom to achieve that end. The model of a State agency allows the recruitment or assignment of staff with specialised knowledge, qualifications and expertise to achieve the purpose for which Government established the agency. The majority of State agencies are bodies corporate in law and we have boards to which the chief executives are accountable. This distinguishes us in significant ways from Departments. The primary responsibility of chief executives in State agencies is to manage the functions which have been delegated to us by our corporate boards.
The principal concern of chief executives whose agencies are to relocate from Dublin is that we should be able to continue to carry out the functions for which our boards were established. In this context, the retention of staff with specialised knowledge, qualifications and expertise is of utmost importance. We are concerned that the corporate knowledge and experience built up over the years through the staff of our agencies will not be lost. We draw the committee's attention to the employment status of those employed in our agencies. Our staff includes public servants with very specific contracts of employment to the agency in which they work, civil servants on secondment from their parent Departments and also non-established civil servants.
In the light of these general considerations, the association brought the following matters to the attention of the decentralisation implementation committee. We sought that the management of State agencies should be represented at central negotiations to ensure that the functions the agencies are statutorily bound to carry out are protected in the implementation of the programme and the very special accountability arrangements in the majority of State agencies, that is, to their boards, is recognised, and the management of State agencies retain the right to select and appoint staff with the competencies appropriate to the specialised business of the organisation. Given the complexity of employment arrangements of staff in State agencies and the variety of options open to staff, any redeployment arrangements should be as flexible as possible.
The association sees merit in having an integrated redeployment arrangement for the civil and public service for all staff and agencies affected by the relocation programme. The option to redeploy, for example, should not be closed at a certain date but should remain open for a significant period after staff have moved to the new location. The position of staff in State agencies who are public servants and who hold a precise contract of employment with an individual Stage agency should be recognised and staff on time-limited contracts should be reassured that their relocation is voluntary and that their contract status will not disadvantage them. There should be a transition period during which staff who exercise their right not to transfer can train their replacements. The additional cost associated with such training, including the salary and overheads of overlapping staff, needs to be built into the funding of the agencies to facilitate the transfer of skills and knowledge. Based on the experiences of some of our member agencies which have previously relocated, it may be necessary to maintain flexibility in the recruitment of highly specialised staff and in the relocation of such staff if they are to be retained or recruited or to meet the needs of a particular client group for whom there is a statutory obligation to provide services.
The needs of agencies in relation to electronic communication, access to other communications infrastructure, public transport and airports, which are vital to the performance of the functions of agencies, should receive the same consideration as the provision of accommodation is receiving. For some agencies, broadband connectivity is essential and should be in place before relocation takes place.
The additional responsibilities on agencies of maintaining functions while relocating must be recognised and, simultaneously, making progress on the programme of public service modernisation should be taken into account in the verification process under Sustaining Progress and any subsequent national agreement. Given the association's interest in corporate governance, attention also needs to be given to the implications for good corporate governance of the relocation of Stage agencies.
Given the national statutory remit of State agencies, a great deal of the time of chief executives is spent liaising with parent Departments, other State agencies with complementary mandates and social partners, and interfacing with the legal system, the private sector, non-governmental agencies and representative groups generally. If the quality of the contribution of the work of State agencies to public life is to be maintained, agencies will need to be resourced for the extra time and complexity involved in ensuring that those aspects of Government activity for which they are responsible are joined up.
