Dáil Éireann Debate, Tuesday - 5 October 2004
1 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the implementation of the decentralisation programme as it affects his Department and the bodies under his aegis; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [17226/04]
Amharc ar fhreagra2 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach the number of officials of his Department who have applied to relocate under the Government’s decentralisation programme; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [17227/04]
Amharc ar fhreagra3 Mr. J. Higgins asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the implementation of the decentralisation programme as it affects his Department. [18999/04]
Amharc ar fhreagra4 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach the number of staff in his Department, broken down by grade, who have applied to the central applications facility for transfer to locations outside Dublin under the Government’s decentralisation proposals; the likely impact of these transfers on his Department; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [21339/04]
Amharc ar fhreagra5 Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach the number of officials from his Department who have applied to relocate under the decentralisation programme; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [21566/04]
Amharc ar fhreagra6 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach the way in which the Government’s decentralisation plans are impacting on his Department; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [22472/04]
Amharc ar fhreagra7 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach the number of staff in his Department who have applied to transfer out of Dublin under the Government’s decentralisation policies; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [23508/04]
Amharc ar fhreagraI propose to take Questions Nos. 1 to 7, inclusive, together.
There are no proposals to decentralise any part of my Department or any of the bodies under its aegis. As of 7 September last, 44 members of staff in my Department had applied through the central applications facility to relocate under the decentralisation programme. The breakdown by grade is assistant principal — six; administrative officer — eight; higher executive officer — four; executive officer — 12; staff officer — two; clerical officer — 11; and general operative — one. The transfer of staff will take place on a planned basis and it is not anticipated that it will in any way impact negatively on the work of the Department.
As the Taoiseach is the Head of Government, will he comment on the figures received by the central applications facility for decentralisation? In particular, what assessment has the Government carried out on the effect on the country of moving eight Ministers and the central policy making sections——
These questions refer specifically to the Taoiseach's Department.
That man over there is in charge of the Taoiseach's Department and all other Departments.
Decentralisation is the responsibility of the Minister for Finance.
Is the Ceann Comhairle refusing to allow me to ask a question about the decentralisation programme in general?
Yes. That is a matter for the Minister for Finance.
Does the Ceann Comhairle not think it appropriate that the Government, of which the Taoiseach is Head, announced that 10,000 civil servants would be moved in three years——
The Deputy is well aware of the Standing Orders and the Chair has no choice but to implement them. The Deputy's question refers specifically to the Taoiseach's Department.
The Ceann Comhairle is around long enough to know well, as he often said to me——
So is Deputy Kenny.
——the way one puts the question does not really matter. It is the consequence of putting that in, that you want to get at him to see what other information he can give you.
Shoddy work.
Try the Hector approach.
The Chair has no option but to implement Standing Orders. These particular questions refer specifically to the Taoiseach.
Is the Taoiseach happy with the situation whereby his Department will be left in situ, as will the Department of Finance while central policy units of other Departments are expected to be moved to other parts of the country? Does the Taoiseach expect that to have an adverse effect on his Department and the Department of Finance?
I do not think it will have an adverse effect on Departments. The main criteria used to select Departments and agencies for decentralisation, which were obviously used when examining the case of my Department, were set out in the budget last year. The underlying principle of the programme was the continuity of effective public service delivery, and this was one of the factors taken into account both in the selection of Departments for decentralisation and the location of those which would not be decentralised. That covered my Department. It was decided not to transfer any sections of the Department of the Taoiseach out of Dublin taking into account the core business of the Department, the relatively small number of staff and the need to ensure that any sections being transferred would be of sufficient size to constitute viable working units. I am sure that in considering the optimum location for my Department, which is one of the smaller Departments, the Minister for Finance took into account how the Department could best support me in performing my constitutional duties as Head of Government.
Although 20% of people at all levels, a significant number, have opted to list their names in the central applications facility process, I do not believe this creates a difficulty for the Department. Obviously all the criteria and issues of staffing, training and movement have been covered in the recent report of the implementation group. My views have also been taken into account by the group.
The Taoiseach quite rightly referred to the criteria used for the selection of Departments to be decentralised from Dublin. Is it not a fact that of the 10,000 posts to be decentralised, just 3,500 have applied to move to one of these posts and only 1,800 have agreed to move beyond greater Dublin?
That question would be more appropriate for the Minister for Finance.
In that context, if the Taoiseach and the Department of Finance, who are important figureheads——
I suggest that the Deputy submit a question to the Minister for Finance.
On what is effectively the first day back, the Ceann Comhairle is refusing to allow a question to the Taoiseach who is in control of the Government——
No, I am merely implementing Standing Orders.
——which announced as a major element in the budget last year that 10,000 people were to be decentralised within three years.
We must have an orderly Question Time.
Just allow him. He is asking a reasonable question.
It is not appropriate to ask any member of Government a question that is more appropriate for another.
In the Taoiseach's assessment, what impact will there be on his Department and its policy-making unit if eight other Ministers are to have their Departments and central policy units decentralised to various locations throughout the country? Has the Government carried out an assessment of that and does it show that it is in the national interest to proceed on that basis with the decentralisation programme?
While I abide by the Ceann Comhairle's ruling, may I say that under the criteria, a sizeable number of people, including a sizeable number in my Department, are to be located under the CAF. All issues of industrial relations, information and communications technology, the Civil Service in the aftermath of decentralisation — something which obviously affects my Department — property and finance are addressed in the reports of March and September and are being analysed in considerable detail with decisions taken as matters proceed. It is a comprehensive assessment of all aspects of all these issues. I am aware that the relevant people currently working on this will make a presentation tomorrow to a committee of the House. To answer Deputy Kenny's question, as regards my Department, all these things are of interest and have a bearing, but I do not see difficulties with these issues from a policy point of view.
I envisage information technology and conferencing facilities being used, as happens in every small business, never mind large businesses. Next month we will be using technology at the Cabinet having piloted it in Departments for the past year. I do not see any difficulties. Multinational companies employing 300,000 or 400,000 people on several continents are able to coherently organise their business. It will not be a problem, therefore, for the Irish public service, employing 25,000 in about 50 locations in 25 counties, to do likewise. There will be problems and obstacles in getting to this position in an operational sense, but I do not foresee a problem of any great magnitude.
I spent an hour and a half trying to get through to the Department of Education and Science in Athlone recently.
The Deputy is out of order.
If there is a logic in not decentralising the Department of the Taoiseach, could the same logic apply to other areas? However, the opportunistic and hasty way in which the Government made the announcement, inappropriately in the course of a budget speech, did not allow for a proper examination of that. If I have heard the Taoiseach correctly some 44 members of his Department have applied to be decentralised. What percentage of the Department in terms of personnel does that constitute and how does it compare to other Departments? In what timescale does he expect those people in his Department to be redeployed?
Deputy McCreevy, before the Taoiseach gave him his bag of bullseyes and sent him to Brussels, had declared categorically that 2007 was to be deadline for the achievement of decentralisation. The Minister of State, Deputy Parlon, on the other hand——
The question refers specifically to the Taoiseach's Department.
I am aware of that but I have to put my question in the context of the Minister who made the policy. I want to find out how aspects of the policy appertain the Department of the Taoiseach because the Minister of State at the Department of Finance, Deputy Parlon, the junior Minister, though surely not in his own mind, told the House that 2007 was only an indicative date. Will the Taoiseach say whether decentralisation in his Department will be completed in 2007 or what date does he expect that to take place?
I do not wish to repeat what I said in answer to Deputy Kenny. Criteria were taken into account and it was not a rushed decision for the last budget. Various tranches of decentralisation have happened over many years. A substantial amount of decentralisation took place when I was Minister for Finance some 12 years ago, affecting the Departments of Social Welfare and Justice, the Revenue Commissioners, CSO and other areas. It is an ongoing process and there was an examination of what we should do in future. About 20% of the staff in my Department have expressed a desire to be decentralised. The Deputy asked how this compares to other Departments. More clerical officers are interested in moving to new locations than there are jobs.
The figure for executive officers is about 85%, for higher executive officers is 74%, for assistant principal officers is 67% and for principal officers is 38%. As people get older they are less inclined to move. Overall, the total number of civil servant applications for the new Civil Service locations equates to about 83% of the number of Civil Service jobs available in those locations. There are 47 locations and in the case of 28, applications exceed 80% of the total number of posts available and in 18 of these locations, the total number of applications exceeds the number of posts available. Some of them are internal, some are external. Some people have already moved or want to move to existing locations. It will mean an orderly move over time. The Government stated last year that we would make substantial progress before 2007, and we will do that. We cannot simply build on the greenfield sites; we have to go through a planning process and see how that operates but all these things are moving effectively and my Department will comply with the regulations set out by the Department of Finance.
Has the Taoiseach's Department, as a consequence of the programme generally, taken account of the expert evidence given to the Select Committee on Finance and the Public Service to the effect that this was not a decentralisation programme but is about the dispersal of civil servants, that it has nothing to do with decentralisation which involves devolution of real power? Is he now resiling from the notion abroad that the foot has been taken off the accelerator on this issue since the debacle of the local and European elections and that the original programme for his Department, and every other Department, is no longer feasible? The Minister responsible for driving it has said words to that effect. Is the Taoiseach resiling from that? Has any quantification been done in his Department of the implications of dispersing the eight other Departments to 53 locations around the country? Is the Taoiseach telling the House that he thinks he can conduct the governance of this country by teleconferencing or video conferencing? I know some of his colleagues on the Front Bench might not be all that happy about being in the same room as him but video conferencing appears to be taking it a step too far. Is the Taoiseach saying we can do business like that in future, merely because of progress made in information technology and so on?
Deputy Rabbitte asked if there was any pulling back from the commitment to move 10,300 civil servants to 53 centres in 25 counties. The answer is "no". The Government is committed to doing that and is working with all the expertise on the implementation group and various people are helping in different areas to achieve that. I am sure the Minister responsible will answer questions on the report of the Committee on Finance and the Public Service.
I have heard all these arguments before — as one gets older one hears the same old nonsense. I remember listening to arguments that Revenue could not be decentralised to Nenagh or the section of the Department dealing with widows could not be located in Sligo, that the world would fall apart.
And a smelter could not be located in Navan.
They are all running more efficiently than ever and from a constituency point of view we all know that. We also know it is far easier to access and make progress and get matters dealt with in these Departments than ever. Many of these Departments were in my own back yard and we could not get anything out of them.
Is health still in Angola?
The fact is that we did away with many of the inefficiencies. If a meeting is being held across Departments we do not need to pull people out of those Departments. Most businesses now use technology to do that on a daily basis, whether it is a meeting on-site or to talk to people in their offices in London, Chicago or wherever. It is normal practice in the world. It is not like the Cabinet meeting which is done collectively and is collectively responsible, but if an assistant secretary wants to talk to another assistant secretary, it is not necessary to meet in one location. We should try not to think in old-fashioned ways that have more to do with gombeen days.
They are still using Tipp-Ex.
I always regret people using these old-fashioned terms. They should try to modernise their thinking——
It would be an argument for an ego trip.
Does the Taoiseach agree that Dr. Ed Walsh and Professor Bannon will not take kindly to being described as gombeen men and old-fashioned thinkers?
Ed Walsh left Dublin like a rocket to get down to Limerick to develop his career, of which I reminded him, and he did it very well.
He wanted to get down there to be near Deputy Willie O'Dea.
I am not sure there are too many assistant secretaries who want to get out of Dublin to develop their careers. Dr. Walsh and Professor Bannon are experts on the subject and that is the testimony they gave to the committee. It cannot be dismissed with a wave of the hand and a remark about gombeen men because whatever else one might think about Dr. Walsh and Professor Bannon who have spent a lifetime writing about this issue, one cannot describe them as gombeen men.
The Taoiseach did not use that description.
The Taoiseach is not accustomed to getting help from the Minister for Finance who used to stay in his office.
He did not say that.
The Minister for Finance should let the Taoiseach answer for himself.
There is no sign of Deputy Michael D. Higgins today.
I am glad that Deputy Cowen is back. I missed him.
It will be a while before Deputy Higgins sits beside Deputy Rabbitte again.
The Minister might have to go down to "Parlon country" as well.
I am glad to be back.
The Minister for Finance should allow Deputy Rabbitte continue on Question No. 7.
I thought the staff in Iveagh House had finessed Deputy Cowen a bit but they obviously have not.
When the Taoiseach says there is no departure from the programme as announced is he sticking to the 2007 date? Is he saying there has been no quantification of the cost in his Department of the implications of dispersing civil servants in eight other Departments to 53 locations? Has that aspect not been considered?
Ed Walsh went to the trouble of talking on this issue and he kindly sent me a speech. He said we should assess and analyse all of these issues carefully and make decisions based on the criteria. Ed Walsh successfully moved to Limerick 25 years ago as he believed it was not necessary to centralise all third level education in just a few places. When he set up the national Higher Education Authority and developed it into what it is today—
He came from America, not from Dublin.
Yes, but he moved to Limerick on the basis of decentralisation when he could have gone to any third level institution in Galway, Cork or Dublin at that time. He is in favour of decentralisation, but he urges caution. That is why we asked him to examine areas such as IT, industrial relations and human resource issues, which he mentioned in his speech, and individual implementation plans.
I wish to confirm for the Deputy that every Department has had a series of workshops and seminars to help Departments and agencies in preparing their implementation plans. A number of Secretaries General, including the Secretary General in my Department, have met to ascertain the views on issues that arise in implementing the programme. I assure Deputy Rabbitte all those valid issues are being carefully studied. We have also looked at the post-decentralisation Civil Service. My Department is not affected, but we have examined the property and financial aspects and how things could work when decentralisation has been completed.
The former Minister for Finance announced last year, with the agreement of the Government, that we would make as much progress as physically possible by 2007. We are doing well. The two reports of March and September highlighted the progress that has been made and there is no need for me to go into it. It is the intention of the implementation group to have identified sites for purchase or existing offices — in most cases it will be greenfield sites — by the end of the year. Planning will then have to be sought and building commenced, and it is hoped that by the end of 2006 many of those will have come through.Obviously, if there are planning difficulties, it will take longer. However, by 2007 a large amount of progress will have been made. Even if it takes somewhat longer than that in a particular area, that would be no harm. The Civil Service will still be here in 2010. I would like to see the greatest progress made in 2007. That would be good for the Civil Service, which has changed fundamentally in two decades. Everyone in the House and in Government can take credit for that.
It is good that we are intent on decentralising. We cannot always complain about traffic, about the fact that Dublin is getting too big and that there will be a further 1.5 million people living in the city in ten years' time and then insist that the Government and the Civil Service cannot show that they want to do something about it. It is silly to behave in that manner. We must try to modernise our country, encourage people to live in the regions and take seriously what the national spatial strategy said about developing towns, large and small. I have spent all my life living within two miles of the centre of the capital city and I am of the opinion that it makes sense to decentralise. We cannot have a situation where people are obliged to develop houses in their front or back gardens, where increasingly taller buildings must be constructed in the heart of the city and where there is nobody living in other parts of the country. It makes sense to do this in a small country and we can do it in a short period. Whether decentralisation will be completed by 28 May or 20 June 2007 is important but if it is completed a short time later, so be it.
At last there is something upon which the Taoiseach and I agree. The decentralisation programme makes sense. In light of the recent reshuffle, will the Taoiseach indicate what is the make-up of the Cabinet sub-committee on decentralisation? In the context of the remarks by Ruth Barrington of the Association of Chief Executives of State Agencies at a meeting of the Joint Committee on Finance and the Public Service on 15 September to the effect that there had been no prior consultation to the announcement in budget 2004 regarding——
The Deputy's original question refers to the Taoiseach's Department.
As does my supplementary question. Ruth Barrington stated that there had been no prior consultation with any of the State agencies. Will the Taoiseach indicate if a survey was carried out in his Department or, if he wants to be generous, in any Department or Government agency in respect of the willingness of people to sign up to a decentralisation proposal? If it is the case that Ruth Barrington has indicated the correct position, how was the calculation of 10,300 places ever arrived at? What was the rationale behind that figure?
That question might be more appropriate to the Minister for Finance.
This is a complex problem and it deserves the Taoiseach's address. The Taoiseach provided some figures in his initial reply. Is he in a position to provide an estimate of the number of people who will be transferred from other Departments to his Department and vice versa? Will it be an exodus? In the review have people expressed an interest in transferring to his Department? Has he any idea at this stage about the degree of flow in and out of his Department?
As regards the numbers of people involved in his Department and across the remainder of the spectrum, does the Taoiseach share the concerns of other Deputies that we are seeing the relocation of people in peripheral towns to the city of Dublin? Would he agree that this is not a decentralisation programme in real terms, particularly when one considers the position of Naas, Kildare and Drogheda which all act, perhaps, as dormitory towns for Dublin, that decentralisation to these towns means that people already domiciled in Dublin do not have to relocate at all and that we will not see real and substantial benefits for them or for communities beyond which would have benefited——
That matter would be more appropriately dealt with by the Minister for Finance.
I ask that the Taoiseach be as generous in his reply as possible.
I will try to answer a number of those questions while complying with the Ceann Comhairle's ruling.
Phil Flynn who reports to the special Cabinet sub-committee chairs the implementation group responsible for driving forward the process. There has been no change in the composition of the sub-committee in terms of the Departments involved but different Ministers have come on board since the reshuffle. The group comprises Mr. Dermot Quigley, former Chairman of the Revenue Commissioners; Ms Jane Williams, managing director of SIA Group; Mr. Fred Devlin, chartered surveyor; Mr. Eddie Sullivan, Secretary General of PSMD in the Department of Finance; and Mr. Seán Benton, chairman of the Office of Public Works. That group, working to the Cabinet sub-committee, drives the implementation. In many cases it uses outside agencies or individuals where needed to assist in its work.
Obviously the second question related to people who would move from my Department and decentralise. Individuals in other Departments who did not want to move would then move into those posts. That would be a function of the central applications facility which would deal with all these issues.
Regarding the locations, we must remember that the scheme is voluntary. The Deputy might say that the locations could be more widely dispersed. While no particular research was carried out before the budget for 2004, it was well known because we have been involved in this process since the late 1980s. Nothing has really changed in that. The people do not want to go too far away in greater numbers and we must work on it. It is a voluntary scheme so we must carry people with us.
No research was carried out.
The Deputy should allow the Taoiseach to reply without interruption.
How did the Government reach that figure?
The best research is the practical knowledge that has been gleaned, based on the sizeable number of Departments and agencies that have moved to various locations around the country, from Donegal to Kerry, over the years. From that knowledge it is known where the demand is. Even before the budget of 2004 people were applying for relocation and that base is known. Many people would be surprised at the numbers who have applied to the central applications facility, both Dublin-based people and those from other locations — maybe not from State agencies.
The knowledge existed and the criteria were based on that. This was how the locations were picked. The suitability of those locations equals the numbers in the agencies. That was how it was done. It is no more complex than that. Considerable thought was given to it and now the implementation group and the Cabinet sub-committee will drive it on for the future.
As has been stated, we should call this dispersal policy rather than decentralisation policy in terms of its effect. How would the Taoiseach ask a civil servant from his Department to volunteer to move? Essentially it is something of a Hobson's choice. Would he ask if such a civil servant would be disappointed not to be working in Dublin in the future? Is there any particular way to ask a person to volunteer when it is very clear, for example, to principal officers that it is not in the best interest of their careers. It seems that the number of volunteers would only fill 38% of the vacancies available. Based on his Department, will the Taoiseach give the lead as to how this might be more successfully done? Does the Taoiseach realise that difficulties exist? He seems to indicate that everything is going swimmingly. However, the reports we have seen show huge difficulties and the deadline of 2007 will not be met.
The Taoiseach mentioned the sites and the building programme for the new offices. Based on replies to previous questions, I know the Taoiseach is not a huge fan of public private partnership. He certainly said the Department of Finance was not a huge fan of such arrangements. However, the construction on 53 new sites at a cost of €800 million may relate to his Department, which is why I ask the question. Does this represent good value given that much of that building——
The question would be more appropriate to——
I am being very specific to the Taoiseach in terms of his concerns and areas of responsibility. It is important that as leader of the Government he should have a view on the matter. I am asking whether leasing back from builders, speculators——
That does not arise out of Questions Nos. 1 to 7.
It does because of the cost factor and the Taoiseach must take account of the cost implications. I will ask him whether he regards——
Implementation does not even fall within the remit of the Taoiseach. It is a matter for the Minister for Finance.
The Taoiseach often talks about the value for money aspect of a plan, particularly a plan relating to his Department. I am asking him if the best value for money is achieved by the State employing somebody else to construct the buildings and then leasing them back at a considerable cost.
That does not arise. In fairness to other Deputies whose questions were disallowed by the Chair for the same reason, I ask Deputy Sargent not to pursue that matter.
I am asking about the Taoiseach's own concerns, I am not really straying in the manner the Chair suggests. Will the Department of the Taoiseach take on the cost of claims from the Association of Chief Executives of State Agencies, which is considering making claims of millions of euro on behalf of public servants who hold job-specific contracts of employment? Is that part of the cost package for this programme?
The Deputy asked a number of questions. A sum of €20 million has been provided for properties in this year's Department of Finance budget. It is obvious that we need to try to determine the locations as quickly as possible. The Office of Public Works, which has significant expertise in this area, will make decisions on the best locations. As I said, I understand from the last report that the OPW will decide to develop greenfield sites to a greater extent than existing accommodation.
The Deputy also asked about locations. Applications have been received from State employees in Dublin and other locations, who wish to move to new locations, for approximately 80% of the posts which will be available in Dublin and other locations and in State companies. Approximately 3,700 civil servants in Dublin, 500 civil servants in State companies and 3,300 civil servants in other locations are interested in the decentralisation programme. That is the make-up. Decisions will be taken about using public private partnerships and other matters.
As I said, the Government is committed to making as much progress as possible by 2007. That does not mean that every last thing has to be finished by 2007 — it will continue. I hope we will have identified the sites by the end of the year and I hope we will make substantial moves next year. Matters are moving very well. I do not deny that there are problems and difficulties, as there are in everything one does. Life is about overcoming problems and difficulties, moving things on and making progress.
I do not have to ask anyone in my Department to move. Although the Department is not being decentralised, over 20% of its staff have signed forms and have asked to be moved. That can continue, as the Deputy knows. The priority listing ended on 7 September last, but the applications system remains open. I do not doubt that the number of applicants will increase as more people examine the advantages of decentralisation and consider their family situations.
A special joint unit of the Department of Finance and the OPW was established to support the implementation team and liaise with Departments about all the property aspects of the programme. Each Minister whose Department is earmarked for decentralisation has established a special decentralisation unit within the Department to report to the management advisory group and the Minister. In turn, the Department reports on a regular basis to the special Cabinet sub-committee that works with the implementation group. That is how the system is working. Everything is not perfect, but there is a process which has to move on, and that is what is happening.
The Taoiseach is aware that some of the agencies designated for decentralisation have a cross-Border dimension. Tá mé ag cuimhniú go spesialta ar Fhoras na Gaeilge, atá ag dul go dtí mo cheantair féin, Gaoth Dobhair. Will the Taoiseach indicate whether these matters were discussed with the Northern Ireland or UK authorities? It is obvious that the authorities are interested in these matters. Were they discussed last Friday when the DUP was here? Have they been discussed with the Minister, Deputy Ó Cuív? Has progress been made due to the fact that Foras na Gaeilge and other agencies have a North-South, cross-Border dimension?
I think Deputy McGinley has gone outside the remit of Questions Nos. 1 to 7, inclusive.
The Taoiseach should know. It is——
I wish to help Deputy McGinley briefly. The answer to his question is "Yes". The discussions on the cross-Border agencies are ongoing and progress is being made on those areas. They have to be agreed on the basis of the implementation bodies and the other cross-Border committees. That is happening and progress is ongoing.
Did the Taoiseach discuss that with the DUP?
Does the Taoiseach agree that, if one does not have the right people with the right skills in the right places, one gets an inferior service? How is the Taoiseach coping with the fact that the records show that specialist staff, such as architects, engineers and probation officers, are unwilling to move? How will he deal with that problem?
The central applications facility and the implementation teams in the Departments must deal with that. Deputy Allen is right in saying that previous experience has shown it is more difficult to get professional groups to move. He will recall — I believe it is his area — that we moved the Central Statistics Office to Mahon in Cork about 12 years ago. We had some difficulty in doing so. However, as he knows, the CSO recently celebrated its tenth birthday there, having successfully reached its first decade in Mahon. It took time to get the various professions to move. In the Departments, Secretaries General have been designated to speak to senior people individually about their requirements and views. About 19 of 55 have agreed to go, with 19 others considering it. That is not yet the full number, but it must be done by one-to-one management to see if the people are willing to move. Since the scheme is voluntary, where that is not the case, they will have to find an alternative, as we did with some of the cases a decade ago. It takes longer, but it is the only way.
