Enda Kenny
Ceist:1 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach the appointments made by him since June 2002 to the State boards or other agencies under his aegis; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [39771/05]
Amharc ar fhreagraAppointments to State Boards.
Ceisteanna (1, 2, 3, 4, 5)
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin
Ceist:2 Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach the appointments he has made to State boards under his Department’s aegis since 2002; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [3212/06]
Amharc ar fhreagra
Trevor Sargent
Ceist:3 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach the appointments made by him to State boards and agencies under his aegis since June 2002; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [3416/06]
Amharc ar fhreagra
Pat Rabbitte
Ceist:4 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach the appointments made to State boards or other agencies under the aegis of his Department since June 2002; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [4184/06]
Amharc ar fhreagra
Joe Higgins
Ceist:5 Mr. J. Higgins asked the Taoiseach the appointments made by him to State boards or other agencies under his Department’s aegis since 2002; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [5504/06]
Amharc ar fhreagraFreagraí ó Béal (44 píosaí cainte)
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 to 5, inclusive, together.
I refer the Deputy to the reply which I gave to a similar question on 25 October 2005, ref. 24237/05. The following table shows the appointments made since.
|
State Board or Agency |
Name of Appointee |
Date of Appointment |
|
National Economic and Social Council |
Mr. Danny McCoy, IBEC |
October 2005 |
|
National Economic and Social Forum |
No appointments since October 2005 |
|
|
National Statistics Board |
No appointments since October 2005 |
|
|
National Centre for Partnership and Performance |
Mr. Peter Cassells, Chairperson |
7 November 2005 |
|
Mr. Philip Kelly, Deputy Chairperson, Department of the Taoiseach |
24 January 2006 |
|
|
Mr. Ciarán Connolly, Department of Finance |
24 January 2006 |
|
|
Mr. John Walsh, Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment |
24 January 2006 |
|
|
Mr. Brendan McGinty, IBEC |
24 January 2006 |
|
|
Mr. Liam Doherty, IBEC |
24 January 2006 |
|
|
Mr. Eddie Keenan, CIF |
24 January 2006 |
|
|
Ms Irene Canavan, Arnotts |
24 January 2006 |
|
|
Mr. Fergus Whelan, ICTU |
24 January 2006 |
|
|
Mr. Jerry Shanahan, AMICUS |
24 January 2006 |
|
|
Ms Catherine Byrne, INTO |
24 January 2006 |
|
|
Mr. Gerry McCormack, SIPTU |
24 January 2006 |
|
|
Prof. Joyce O’Connor, National College of Ireland |
24 January 2006 |
|
|
Ms Dorothy Butler Scally, Independent Human Resources Consultant |
24 January 2006 |
|
|
Dr. Catherine Kavanagh, UCC |
24 January 2006 |
|
|
Law Reform Commission |
No appointments since October 2005 |
The boards under the aegis of the Department of the Taoiseach are the National Statistics Board, the National Economic and Social Council, the National Economic and Social Forum, the Information Society Commission, the National Centre for Partnership and Performance, the Law Reform Commission and the IFSC groups. The National Statistics Board does not meet the minimum target that 40% of membership be from either gender, and only six of 32 members of the National Economic and Social Council board are women.
Moreover, the National Centre for Partnership and Performance, which held its first meeting recently, does not meet the target, with five female and nine male members. I am sure the Taoiseach would always wish to display leadership in the specific commitments in the programme for Government aimed at improving gender equality on the State boards. Given that his Department and the bodies under its aegis and responsibility do not meet those requirements, how can we expect everyone else to toe the line in this regard? For instance, can the Taoiseach indicate why only six of the NESC's 32 members are women? Is it because women were not asked, or because of a failure to find people of suitable ability who were willing to take up the positions? Perhaps there is an explanation for this quite extraordinary gap.
One must wait until one is asked.
As for the NESC, to be precise, the percentage of women stands at 19%. Most of the boards in question should have many more women serving on them. However, these bodies are all composed of representatives of the social partners. Farmers, employers and trade unions do not have a tendency to appoint anything which resembles a fair representation of women, in spite of ongoing arguments and battles about it. As Deputy Kenny correctly noted, my Department does not control many appointments. However, an effort is made in the case of our independent nominees, who form a small portion of the total, as well as the Oireachtas nominees, who are a matter for the Oireachtas. Nevertheless, the figures from the social partners are not great. All I can do is to relay again the House's concern about the representative bodies. While the social partners could do better, they tend not to.
The Taoiseach referred to a figure of 19%. To what did he refer? Am I correct in stating that of the 32 members, only six are women?
I understand it is 19% of the total figure.
What is the total figure? Of what is it 19%?
In respect of the NESC?
Yes. I understand that it has 32 members, only six of whom are women. However, the Taoiseach's reply cited a figure of 19%, which, being a percentage, looks better than a figure of six.
The figure is 19%. However, as far as I am aware, the total number is 30.
Such people are nominees of the social partners and one cannot refuse to take them. It is an ongoing battle. As for bodies such as the IFSC, in which there are clearing house groups, rather than boards, we have a high proportion of women. However, in respect of the main bodies, the National Statistics Board is different because it is a specialist board with a good percentage of women serving on it. The social partners are notorious for not appointing women.
Does the Taoiseach acknowledge the desirability of ensuring that State boards, where practical and appropriate, should have an all-Ireland character and approach? Will this be reflected in future appointments? To take the example of the National Economic and Social Forum, does the Taoiseach agree that it would be appropriate for such a body to have an all-Ireland character and approach, particularly now, given the changed political dispensation on this island? When vacancies present, or when the next appointment of the five Government appointees comes about, will this be reflected in the numbers appointed by the Taoiseach as representatives of Government? Does the Taoiseach believe they should come from a variety of experiences and backgrounds, including local government, trade unions, community and voluntary sectors, the business sector and farming interests? Is it the case that meeting the desire to ensure we reflect on an all-Ireland approach to these appointments, there are such limitations in the current number of appointees that it may require revisiting? Is the Taoiseach considering this? Is legislation required to revisit the make up of the NESF, and other State boards for which the same arguments properly apply, into the future?
Over the years there has always been an effort to include northern input and representation on the board of NESC and other bodies, maybe not a high number but it would not justify a high number. That has been done by successive Governments and it is still the position. We should include such representation on State boards in general, particularly where there is an economic, social or cultural dimension. We are in favour of greater cross-Border all-Ireland economy joint initiatives and collaborations in the health and education areas. I have no difficulty saying that should be a representative group across knowledge, foresight and professionalism. Recently a number of business, education and cultural representatives from Northern Ireland have been put on State boards, which is an important practice.
It would not necessarily require changes in legislation but it would be helpful, particularly in my area, if the social partnership groups were to pick a Northern representative. Most of them could do that because they have close associations in business, and the Irish Congress of Trade Unions is an all-island organisation. They are not bad at doing that. As distinct from what I said earlier to them about the gender balance, they keep strong representation from Northern Ireland in their executives and in their committee delegations.
We have heard reference to gender balance and all-island dimensions. Maidir le cúrsaí Gaeilge, an bhfuil aon chritéir nó ceist mar gheall ar chumas na Gaeilge in aon duine a ainmnítear d'aon bhord Stáit? What is the provision for somebody dealing with the State bodies through Irish? Is that dealt with separately to the appointments of which we are speaking?
Does the issue of disabilities come into play in appointments to State boards? The question arises from the news item that referred to 3% being too low for the number of people with disabilities employed in Departments. Has the Taoiseach given that any thought, given the number of people with disabilities, for example, qualified graduates, who cannot get jobs is much higher than that in the wider population?
Is there a code of practice in the operation of State boards that would include, for example, a requirement to take minutes of meetings? It is not under his Department's remit but obviously the stories concerning Bord na gCon bring the question to mind.
It does not arise out of these questions.
It does not for Bord na gCon but it does arise for the board.
I ask Deputy Sargent to confine himself to the five questions before us.
I am and I will continue to.
The question of minutes of any meeting, even in the Taoiseach's Department, does not arise out of these five questions.
It might be useful for nominees to know if they are expected to keep minutes.
The Deputy should submit a question.
There is a number of people either working or on the committees of NESF and all of those boards who are fluent and who would deal with Irish. They have a fairly high proportion of such people because of their interests.
Disability does not really apply to these boards but the National Disability Council has a strong board and there are others where disabilities are well represented. Some of the nominees to some of these organisations feed into some of the wider social partnership groups, where disabilities groups are strongly represented in their pillar, and also NESC, NESF and NCPP include people who have an interest. The 3% issue relates to employees and it is not relevant to these questions. However, it is relevant that it is important to people who have an interest and the knowledge.
I refer back to the question on the participation of women and the fact that the rate of such participation is going backwards from the days the former Deputy, Mervyn Taylor, was Minister for Equality and Law Reform and sought to ensure the 40% participation requirement was applied. Does the Taoiseach agree that as long as his Government acquiesces in representative organisations not putting forward women for these appointments, the position is unlikely to improve? Has the time come for the Taoiseach to give a lead in his Department and say if organisations such as the IFA and the ICTU do not put forward a more representative sample of women to participate on boards under the aegis of his Department, he will not make the appointments? Would that not quickly bring them to heel? The suggestion that women cannot be found in the trade union movement, the farming community or business who are suitable to function on one of these boards in 2006 lacks credibility and the time has come for the Government to take a tougher line with representative organisations.
Generally, the figure has remained high and across most boards it is fairly good. With regard to the representative groups, it continues to be a problem. In so far as I engage in these appointments, I put pressure on my Department. The last appointment in January was to the board of the National Centre for Partnership and Performance and the point raised by the Deputy was relevant. We have argued this previously. Five out of 12 or 13 people appointed to boards under the aegis of my Department are women. It is a battle with the social partners to keep up their 50% and time and again the Government is left in the position of trying to improve the balance. The Government includes many women in its nominees and, while there is nothing wrong with that, it would be better if the social partners appointed a higher proportion of women.
I take the Deputy's point that many relevant people in the trade union movement and the employer's group can do this. Financial groups do not have this problem and they get a strong representation of high quality people who are prepared to give their time voluntarily to the IFSC and other statistical matters and they do not receive allowances or so on, unlike appointees to NESC or other boards. We will continue to do that. The recent appointment was an approved position but it is a permanent battle to get the social partners to put forward women.
Is the Taoiseach prepared to appoint to a board under his aegis a person disqualified from functioning as a director in the private sector? Does he think that is appropriate?
I think not. There is a screening process. If somebody were disqualified from a business perspective, he or she would not get through. I do not know of such an individual off the top of my head but if somebody were disqualified from business, he or she would hardly get through as an IBEC or Chambers of Commerce of Ireland representative, which are normally the representative groups involved.
I asked if the Government would make such an appointment, not whether IBEC would nominate such a person.
These questions refer to the Taoiseach's Department.
If someone was disqualified or knocked off a register, it is unlikely the person would come through the process. The Deputy obviously has a particular case in mind.
It has happened. One Minister has appointed such a person. It happened in the case of Bord na gCon.
That does not arise under this question. I suggest the Deputy find another way of raising it.
I did not ask the Taoiseach about a specific case, I merely asked him a generic——
The Deputy mentioned a specific board that is not under the aegis of the Taoiseach.
The Taoiseach asked me if I had a particular case in mind. I asked him a generic question about——
I call Deputy Deenihan.
With respect, I merely asked the Taoiseach a generic question as to whether he considers it appropriate to appoint someone to a State board who was disqualified from functioning in the private sector as a result of a decision of the High Court.
The Deputy moved on to the area of another Minister.
I will look at the case. In the normal position I would not appoint someone who was disqualified.
In circumstances where the social partners are not involved and where the Government has sole responsibility for the appointment of directors of State boards, will the Taoiseach explain why there is no female member, nor has there been for some time, on the seven-man board of Bord na gCon?
That does not arise out of this question. The Deputy's question refers to a specific board and the Deputy will have to find another way of raising the matter. I have ruled Deputies Sargent and Rabbitte out of order.
With regard to general Government policy, I wish to point out to the Taoiseach that there has been no female member on the seven-member board of Bord na gCon for a number of years.
I suggest the Deputy submit a question to the appropriate Minister.
If the Taoiseach goes to Shelbourne Park, he will see that 50% of the people there are women.
They cannot be blamed for causing any of the arguments if there is none of them on the board.
We would not have the problem if they were.
Tribunals of Inquiry.
Ceisteanna (6, 7, 8, 9)
Enda Kenny
Ceist:6 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach the cost which accrued to his Department during 2005 in respect of the Moriarty tribunal; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [39776/05]
Amharc ar fhreagraCaoimhghín Ó Caoláin
Ceist:7 Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach the cost to his Department of the Moriarty tribunal since its establishment; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [3213/06]
Amharc ar fhreagraTrevor Sargent
Ceist:8 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach the cost to date in 2006 to his Department of the Moriarty tribunal; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [3417/06]
Amharc ar fhreagraJoe Higgins
Ceist:9 Mr. J. Higgins asked the Taoiseach the cost to date in 2006 to his Department of the Moriarty tribunal; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [5505/06]
Amharc ar fhreagraFreagraí ó Béal (15 píosaí cainte)
I propose to take Questions Nos. 6 to 9, inclusive, together.
The total costs incurred by my Department in respect of the Moriarty tribunal from 1997 to 31 January 2006 is €22,587,982. This includes fees paid to counsel for the tribunal and administration costs incurred since its establishment. The total payment made to the legal team was €17,134,415 up to 31 January 2006. The total cost incurred by my Department in respect of this tribunal during 2005 was €3,437,023. The total cost for 2006 to 31 January is €507,710.
This tribunal has dragged on for over eight years at a cost of €22 million. It is absurd that having set up the Moriarty tribunal for a particular purpose this House has never had an opportunity to debate even an interim report from the tribunal nor has it any concept of when it may conclude its deliberations. I understand the date originally envisaged for the application of new fees was 11 January 2006. There were to be reduced fees for legal personnel involved and that was calculated on the basis that the tribunal's programme of work as it stood in mid-2004 would be concluded in or around that date. The tribunal then discussed the matter with the Government and the date was extended to 13 June 2006, an extra five and a half months.
What is the estimated closure date of the Moriarty tribunal? Does the Taoiseach have a figure for the estimated cost of the extension in respect of the higher legal fees that apply until the new ones kick in? Looking back, in 1997 the cost was €553,000. This rose to €1.6 million in 1998, €2.1 million in 1999, €2.17 million in 2000, €2.24 million in 2001, €2.79 million in 2002, €3.4 million in 2003, €3.6 million in 2004 and €2.7 million up to the end of September 2005. The public is weary of this tribunal and others. While everyone wants to seek the truth, in this case, it has dragged on for eight years with no finding whatsoever brought to bear. Will the Taoiseach indicate when it is expected to conclude so that at least one of these tribunals would present its deliberations and the House can have a debate on its findings, whatever they might be?
As I understand it, the Moriarty tribunal was due to end its public hearings and the report was to be written and delivered in or around the end of the year. I think that is what I told the House on a previous occasion. I do not have any information other than that. As Deputy Kenny has correctly said, the Moriarty tribunal was given an extension at the higher fee rates up to 30 June next. I do not know if it will finish its public hearings in that period. The previous Minister for Finance had agreed a period, in consultation with the Attorney General and the chairman, after which the new fees were to become applicable. To the best of my knowledge, and I do not have anything telling me otherwise, that remains the position.
Does the Taoiseach recall that 11 January was the original date by which the new, lower fees were to have kicked in? We have already had an exchange here with regard to the extension of the higher rate until the end of June. There is obviously an ongoing cost to the Taoiseach's Department relating to the extension, not only of the tribunal sittings but also of the higher fees for the period until the end of June. If the Taoiseach does not have the information to hand to answer the questions before him, will he revert to the Deputies later and advise them of same?
There must be some indication as to when the business of the Moriarty tribunal will conclude. Will the Taoiseach be more specific when speaking of a report expected by the end of the year? Will he be more specific about the conclusion of the public hearings and when it is expected that the report will be presented?
With regard to other tribunals that may present in the future, what methodology will be employed in the determination of costs in those cases?
The questions refer specifically to the Moriarty tribunal.
I appreciate that, but from the lessons learned from the Moriarty tribunal, will fees be decided by negotiation or will the Taoiseach set a standard for fees that would apply in all cases——
That does not arise out of these questions.
——thereby mitigating the cost to the Exchequer and to the individuals who may be obliged to present themselves before tribunals?
In July 2004 the Government decided to apply a new scale of legal fees payable in respect of any new tribunals and inquiries established on or after 1 September 2004. The effect of the scale was to reduce substantially the costs of legal representation at new tribunals and inquiries. In September of 2004, the Government decided that the new scale would also be applied to existing tribunals and inquiries as and from certain dates which were specified in respect of each tribunal and inquiry. The dates were based in each case on the expected date of conclusion of the work of each tribunal of inquiry and were agreed between the Attorney General and each of the relevant tribunals.
At the time of the two Government decisions, there was no statutory power to reduce the fees payable to lawyers in the existing tribunals and inquiries. It was envisaged that a short Act to amend the tribunals legislation would be enacted which would confer a specific power to limit the fees payable to existing tribunals and inquiries. A Bill to this end was drafted by the Office of the Attorney General prior to the publication of the Law Reform Commission report on tribunals of inquiry. It was decided to await publication of the commission's recommendations before any legislative proposal would be published. After the publication of the commission's report the earlier draft Bill was subsumed into a much larger and more comprehensive Bill to consolidate and reform all the tribunals legislation. This larger Bill will be published within the next few weeks. Therefore, there is no statutory power to reduce the fees payable to the lawyers in the various tribunals and inquiries and there will not be any such statutory power until the Tribunals of Inquiry Bill 2005 is enacted by the Houses.
The original date envisaged for the application of fees to the Moriarty tribunal was 11 January 2006. This was calculated on the basis that the tribunal's programme of work as it stood at mid-2004 would be concluded on or about that date. Due to unforeseen circumstances that have since arisen, the extensive nature of its terms of reference and ongoing inquiries and litigation by parties involved in the tribunal, the tribunal has requested that it be given an additional amount of time to complete its work. That matter was discussed with the tribunal and, given the relevant imminence of the conclusion of the tribunal's work, it is believed it is was reasonable to facilitate the continuance of work until the end of June. This represents an extension of five and a half months from the previous expected completion date. It must be borne in mind that the tribunal has been in operation for eight years and is nearing completion.
It is expected that the new tribunals legislation will be enacted before this summer. Therefore, there should be no obstacle to reducing fees payable to lawyers appearing before the Moriarty tribunal after that date in the event that the tribunal has not completed its work by then.
Deputy Ó Caoláin's last question was about the procedure for the future. This will come under the Tribunals of Inquiry Bill which is entirely different legislation. The Bill provides that much of the work will be done in private and the entire system of dealing with the tribunal will be very different from that currently in operation. It will be built around the Commissions of Investigation Act. The two forms of investigation are different models of investigation. Each will have a particular purpose depending on the wishes of the Oireachtas. The main distinction between a commission of investigation and a tribunal is that the commission will conduct its investigation in private. The other significant feature is that the witnesses will make their application for fees at the end of the investigation.
The legislation underpinning commissions of investigation is designed to provide a cost effective and speedy response where situations arise and require detailed and focused investigation. It gives the State and the Oireachtas a much more flexible investigation mechanism which focuses on taking evidence in private and may ultimately lead to the establishment of a tribunal of inquiry. It is believed it will be much quicker, speedier, less cumbersome and less costly on the State.
It would not be difficult to be quicker in this case. Is it true that the cost so far is more than €22.5 million? For a tribunal that has sat for eight years and five months, that amounts to just under €3 million per year. Has the Taoiseach a firm conviction that this tribunal will definitely not exceed the new extension date of the end of June 2006? Is that a definite date or another target date for the ending of the tribunal? Given that the perception is that the tribunals are insulating the body politic from even discussing, as we have discovered in the House, many of the details or the ramifications or the evidence, is it not the case that the courts should be let deal with issues of misdemeanours and——
We cannot discuss the content of what happens at the tribunal. As the Deputy is well aware Standing Order 56 precludes us from setting up a tribunal and then discussing its proceedings.
Absolutely. The Ceann Comhairle has proved my point very ably once again. Have lessons been learned from this eight year and five month tribunal and is the end of June a firm date or another target?
The figure the Deputy mentioned is correct. He will appreciate I can only outline to him the assessment given to me. I am not responsible for the tribunal and can only give the date I am given, but I do not know how firm that date will be.
Deputy Sargent stated the total cost amounts to €22.5 million. Does that include all third party costs to date? Am I to understand from what the Taoiseach is saying that the commitment to reduce the fees from 11 January 2006 has not been enforced but that he still anticipates that the tribunal will finish its work by the end of June? Is he saying that if it continues beyond June, the commitment to reduce the fees will still not be enforced?
The costs to date amount to €22.5 million. The tribunal received an extension, which was deemed reasonable based on work it had to do in addition to that on its existing schedule. A case was made to the relevant Department and the Attorney General in this regard and thus the timeframe was extended to the end of June. If the work is not completed at the end of June, the tribunal legislation must be passed because it gives the State the power to amend the fees schedule. That would have to be done first because we do not have the statutory power.
I understand the tribunal hopes to be finished in public session by summer, after which its report is to be presented. As I said previously, it was expected that the tribunal would complete its work towards the end of the year.
On Deputy Rabbitte's question whether the sum of €22.5 million includes third party costs, he raised that issue previously. To the best of knowledge, when I checked the figure I noted it did not cover any of those costs. The costs are based on the fees to date. I am subject to correction, but I understand the third party decisions have not been made in the case of this tribunal so any costs granted in the case of third parties will be in addition to the figures I have put on the record.
Decentralisation Programme.
Ceisteanna (10, 11, 12, 13, 14)
Enda Kenny
Ceist:10 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach the number of his Department’s staff who have applied for relocation under the Government’s decentralisation programme; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [39777/05]
Amharc ar fhreagraTrevor Sargent
Ceist:11 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach the implications of decentralisation for his Department; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [1241/06]
Amharc ar fhreagraJoe Higgins
Ceist:12 Mr. J. Higgins asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the implementation of the decentralisation programme as it affects his Department. [1864/06]
Amharc ar fhreagraCaoimhghín Ó Caoláin
Ceist:13 Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the Civil Service relocation programme as it affects his Department; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [3214/06]
Amharc ar fhreagraPat Rabbitte
Ceist:14 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach the number of staff within his Department by grade who have applied for relocation under the decentralisation programme; if an assessment has been carried out of the implications for his Department of the transfer of such staff; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [4185/06]
Amharc ar fhreagraFreagraí ó Béal (31 píosaí cainte)
I propose to take Questions Nos. 10 to 14, inclusive, together.
Forty-five staff currently serving in my Department have applied through the central applications facility to relocate under the decentralisation programme. The breakdown by grade is as follows: assistant principal, nine; higher executive officer, four; administrative officer, ten; executive officer, ten; staff officer, two; and clerical officer, ten. Three former members of staff have been assigned to decentralised posts.
Arrangements are in place to ensure that the decentralisation of staff does not impact negatively on the quality of the services provided by the Department. These arrangements include the phased redeployment of some of the remaining staff to the areas of the Department most affected by decentralisation and the provision of training and job profiles or work manuals to new staff, as appropriate. That almost 22% of the staff of the Department have opted to relocate outside Dublin shows the underlying decision to initiate a comprehensive decentralisation programme was correct.
Does the Taoiseach have information on the Departments and locations to which the officials in question have applied to be transferred? The Taoiseach will recall that when the former Minister for Finance announced at the end of December 2003 that the Government intended to pursue a programme of decentralisation, he indicated that 10,300 public servants would be decentralised from Dublin within a three-year period. It seems that the programme is now in deep trouble.
The questions before the House relate to 45 members of staff in the Department of the Taoiseach. I would prefer if we moved on.
The Ceann Comhairle waited patiently for 45 seconds before jumping in at the first opportunity.
The Chair does not have any choice in the matter.
He leapt in as soon as I mentioned the relevance of this issue to anything outside the Department of the Taoiseach.
The questions refer specifically to the Department of the Taoiseach. I understand that similar questions have been tabled to the Minister for Finance.
The Ceann Comhairle did not let me finish my question.
I am sure the Deputy will have an opportunity to ask supplementary questions on the matter then.
I was not allowed to finish my question.
Perhaps the Taoiseach will refer to the implementation bodies.
I am sure he will be more exact than the Deputy was in his remark about exports last week.
Does the Taoiseach have information about the locations to which the officials in the Department of the Taoiseach have applied to be decentralised? Do they wish to be transferred to other locations in Dublin or to places outside Dublin? It was originally announced that 10,300 public servants would be relocated to 53 places inside three years, but it is obvious that will not happen now. I would like to find out where the officials in the Department of the Taoiseach, which is quite small, are going. Will they be replaced by new officials who will be assigned to the Department of the Taoiseach?
As I said, 22% of the staff of the Department of the Taoiseach have opted to relocate outside Dublin. It is obvious that no section of that Department is to be decentralised. It is a question of what individuals across all Departments are doing within the system. Some 10,600 people, or 100 a month, are hoping to transfer to the Departments which are to be decentralised. That is what is going on in the current system.
Does the Taoiseach have the relevant information for the Department of the Taoiseach? Statistics in respect of all Departments were published last week.
That information is available. I do not have information on what individuals are doing. The Deputy can take it that the officials who wish to be transferred have applied to be located in sections which are to be transferred to locations outside Dublin. People in the Department of the Taoiseach are aware that they will not get out over——
Only one in ten public servants wants to leave Dublin.
We cannot have a debate on the matter now. Two of the oral questions which will be answered shortly by the Minister for Finance, who is responsible for the decentralisation programme, relate to this issue.
I want to know about the Department of the Taoiseach only.
No, you are talking about thousands of civil servants.
I am not.
There are only 45 civil servants involved in that Department.
I am asking the Taoiseach whether he has information about the staff in that Department. Will they be replaced by means of other recruitment within the public service?
That is what will happen. Officials in the Department of the Taoiseach are transferring to other Departments, in Dublin or elsewhere, which are to be decentralised. They are doing that because it is the only way they can position themselves for decentralisation, and that is fair enough. The percentage of staff at each grade in the Department of the Taoiseach to have applied is as follows. Some 28% of staff at assistant principal level have applied, as have 17% of staff at higher executive officer level, 53% of staff at administrative officer level, 38% of staff at executive officer level, 14% of staff at staff officer level and 19% of staff at clerical officer level. That is happening across Departments.
While it will take time to go through the system and we will not complete the process in three years, it is patently obvious that there is a demand among people in the Civil Service to move to other locations. It will take time for that to happen because new sites have to be acquired and offices have to be built, and all that is being done. Some 45 officials in the Department of the Taoiseach, or 22% of the total, have put themselves on the list so that they can ultimately be decentralised.
Dúirt an Taoiseach i mí na Samhna seo caite go raibh timpeall 20% dá fhoireann le dílárnú, cé nach bhfuil a Roinn féin le dílárnú. Has the Taoiseach factored in a cost for retraining those who replace his decentralised staff members? Does he even intend to replace such staff members? Does he expect his staff to have moved out before the next general election? Are any members of his staff who volunteered for decentralisation in line for promotion? Has that policy been stopped following the Labour Court decision regarding FÁS? Was there an expectation that promotion would accompany a willingness to decentralise from his Department?
Does the Taoiseach recall that his response to this question the last day was that 42 of his Department's staff had applied for decentralisation? Have a further three staff applied since then? Does he expect that more staff members may seek relocation? Does he recall stating on the same occasion that members of staff in his Department who move to the relocated offices of other Departments must be replaced by civil servants of the same grade? In that regard, has he received a letter from IMPACT on the issue of decentralisation? The Minister for Foreign Affairs indicated that new staff would have to be recruited——
That does not arise in questions to the Taoiseach. The Minister for Finance will answer questions later.
Has the Taoiseach responded to the letter from IMPACT? Can he clarify his position on the issue?
Given that less than 10% of civil servants have applied for decentralisation three years after it was first announced, does the Taoiseach have any concerns that we will end up with a parallel Civil Service? Since it is proving difficult to get the appropriate persons in the appropriate Department to transfer, we may end up having a dual system in some Departments, where we will simply recruit the expertise——
The question may only refer to the Taoiseach's Department. The Minister for Finance will answer questions shortly.
There is ongoing training for staff members who come into the Department or who move from one Department to another. There are now around 10,500 people on the list. What happens before the next general election is relevant to the decentralisation process. The public service is non-political. I was Minister for Finance in the early 1990s when the Government last implemented a decentralisation programme. It was an ambitious programme involving thousands of people. People claimed that it would never happen and that it would not work, but it worked perfectly, even though it took longer than we thought. Industrial relations must be taken into account and these issues must be negotiated. Everyone knows these offices now work successfully and that the services provided are top class. The same will happen with this programme. It takes time to work and it cannot be done other than by negotiation and preparation. Locating sites and designs will take time. We have the support of the public servants and, in particular, the civil servants on this issue.