Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Chairperson (Mr Irwin): I welcome Gerry Lavery, deputy secretary; Tom Kennedy, assistant secretary; and Tracey Teague, assistant secretary. I ask you to take no more than about 10 minutes to brief us, please. We will then have some questions.

Mr Gerry Lavery (Department of Agriculture and Rural Development): Thank you for that welcome. I have briefed the Committee in the past on relocation, and the big change since I last spoke to the Committee, in April, I think, was the decision of the Executive on 26 June that we could now go ahead with the full implementation programme, including the Ballykelly relocation. In providing an update, the first thing to say to the Committee is that we are now in implementation mode. The atmosphere around relocation has changed in the last couple of months, and, since that 26 June decision, we have had a very high level of cooperation from other Departments, including the Department of Finance and Personnel (DFP), and from Land and Property Services (LPS), particularly on Ballykelly but on relocation in general. This programme is now well and truly launched.

I reassure the Committee that we are very focused on it as a rural development programme. We see it as being of benefit in the fairer distribution of public sector jobs and facilitating the aspiration of rural dwellers to have careers in the Civil Service, up to and including the highest level of permanent secretary. We believe that it will have a benefit in growing the rural economy and that, if we can show that we can run a departmental headquarters from Ballykelly in particular, it will be a challenge to other Departments and public sector bodies to look at rural locations on a par with locations in greater Belfast or the east of the Province.

Tom will talk about the programme, and Tracey will talk about the human resource implications. Again, I give the Committee the assurance that this is a programme. It is run as a programme and has programme governance around it. All of the necessary committees and so on that you would expect to see to make these relocations happen are in place. I have been going around talking to my staff in particular about the relocation programme, and the message that I have been giving them is that this will happen and that they should plan their careers accordingly. I am 99·5% confident that this will happen, and my advice to them is to plan on that basis. Of course, they can plan on the possibility that it will not happen, but I do not encourage that.

As we have gone along, we have, to an extent, tried to take the risk out of the relocation programme. As the Committee knows, we have split the programme into four relocations. We have phased it so that the relocation at Ballykelly in December 2017 will be a 400-seater new build, followed by a 200-seater new build in 2020. We have focused the Ballykelly relocation on the functions that you would expect to find in a headquarters: our top team, central personnel, central finance and corporate services. All those will be there. To an extent, even focusing on those central services takes a lot of risk out of the programme. It means that we will not be taking a large number of professional and technical jobs to Ballykelly in that first phase. It means that the skills that we are looking for in the first phase are widely found in the Civil Service, so we are looking all the time to business continuity and to continue to deliver the full spectrum of the Minister's priorities and vision.

Finally from me, I give the assurance that, all the time, we are aligning this process with other change in the Department, whether arising from the budget or from our ambition to have a new target operating model. So, I am, I hope, in a better position than I was in April to give an assurance that the relocation programme is very much on track. If you will permit me, Mr Chairman, I will now ask Tom Kennedy to speak a little about the slides, of which the Committee has copies.

Mr Tom Kennedy (Department of Agriculture and Rural Development): Thank you, Gerry. I will briefly run through the slides on the relocation plans. Our target dates are set, and we are working towards those. I included a little diagram on where the jobs will be — the relocations around Northern Ireland. That is to give you a feel for the distribution across the piece. Obviously, we will have a small hub in Belfast, where we could have touch down space and maybe a small number of people, but, as far as HQ is concerned, this is where it is moving to.

I thought that it might be interesting to give you an aerial view of where the Ballykelly site is. We are at the right-hand side of the site and will use approximately 14 acres there. Gerry talked about there being two phases of development. The first phase is for 400 seats, and that building will be designed in such a way that it can be extended. The construction costs alone are about £14 million for the first phase and then a further £6 million. Obviously, other things need to be added to that.

At Loughry, an existing building will be demolished and replaced by a new one. Opposite that building is the existing Rivers Agency depot, where it has technical bits and pieces. That is the design, and the plan is to make that happen for March 2016. The rough capital cost is £2·6 million, and the building will accommodate 85 workstations.

Next is Forest Service, and the picture is of the front door of Inishkeen House, which is a building on the Belfast side of Enniskillen, and we have existing staff in there. There are plans to refurbish and open that building up to accommodate Forest Service staff, and work is ongoing with Central Procurement Directorate to get the design of that right and work that through with LPS.

We asked LPS to research accommodation for the fisheries section moving to Downpatrick, and the accommodation found is in Downshire Civic Centre. Work is ongoing to agree the leasing arrangements there, so suitable accommodation has been found to make that happen, and we have agreed and are working through heads of terms.

It is important to touch on the engagement. Tracey will pick up on the HR engagement. Given the size of the project, there has been extensive engagement with the trade unions and staff. We published the equality impact assessment (EQIA) — a fairly extensive piece of work — in August. Work such as keeping you updated and dealing with questions is ongoing. Internally, we have an intranet with all the information on it for staff.

Finally from me, these are the next steps. We are moving into a phase of looking at detailed design and making sure that the layouts and so on are fine. Already, the planning approval has been requested for Rivers Agency in Cookstown, and we are working up to the Ballykelly one, which we need to have approved by August of next year. We are working on tender documents to make that happen. There is a whole programme to move that forward. One of the big strands is HR, and I will ask Tracey to give you a brief update.

Ms Tracey Teague (Department of Agriculture and Rural Development): One of the biggest issues with the programme is its impact on staff. I give you an assurance that an HR strategy has been developed and is being implemented. Its key aspects relate to the relocation of staff who want to go; the redeployment of staff who do not want to go; new staff in and other staff out; and the knowledge capture and transfer to enable business to carry on as usual throughout the whole process. The HR strategy has a plan of action to cover us from 2015 to 2020 — the full transition period.

Work is under way to work out the processes and mechanisms that will work across the Civil Service (NICS). This issue is bigger than DARD, so we will work with other Departments and corporate HR to make sure that we have the facilities and the mechanisms to enable the transfer of staff in and out of DARD.

One of the key issues was to question our staff on their preference: to go or to stay. Surveys were carried out of staff in posts in all four new locations, and we have the results. That means that we have an indication of the scale of work and how many staff want to go with their job. In addition, we commenced an NICS-wide survey to ensure that we capture the total number of staff who would like to work in the new locations. Some DARD staff wish to go and others do not, so we are capturing the number of staff in the wider NICS who would be interested in moving. That survey completes on Wednesday, so we do not have the full details yet. However, early indications are very positive and suggest a demand in the rest of the NICS for posts in regional locations.

I will touch on the engagement with the trade union side (TUS), which has been a critical part of the work to implement the HR element. We have monthly meetings with the departmental trade union side and have met at a central level. As I said before, this is wider than DARD.

On engagement and communication with staff, there have been regular staff meetings and group discussion sessions as well as the questionnaires. To manage the whole process, each of the business areas will work to have what are known as staff transition plans and staff handling plans. Those will enable a sense of working to get new staff in and new staff out, and they will capture the knowledge needed to ensure that we can continue to deliver the business. As Gerry said, part of the risk mitigation factor is that, in Ballykelly in particular, there has been a focus on corporate services so that we are in a better position to get in new staff who have those skills.

The equality impact assessment indicated that there may be groups who are adversely impacted — people with dependants, people of different ages, people with a disability and also between men and women generally. We have mitigating actions to address those issues, and relocating staff in a managed process and providing flexible arrangements are just some of the actions that we will take. In addition, the EQIA recognised that the relocation will also impact positively on current and future NICS staff by showing that there are jobs and promotion opportunities in locations outside greater Belfast.

The Chairperson (Mr Irwin): Thank you again for your presentation. As a Committee, we are concerned that the brief does not include a budget for the relocations. In future, we expect a much more detailed brief and an analysis of the budget and expenditure. A marker needs to go down. We are disappointed. Mr Noel Lavery, when discussing this with the Committee in July, said:

Why have we not seen the business case yet? As a marker, let me say that the receipt of the business case is the minimum that we would have expected today.

Mr Lavery: The business case has always been an issue in this project. When the Minister indicated that we were to relocate to Ballykelly, I asked for a direction that would allow us to produce a business case based on Ballykelly alone. It is not a classic business case. It does not look at the full range of location options because it is based solely on the best and most efficient way of relocating to Ballykelly. As such, it is currently at outline business case stage. Once we get the final figures in response to tenders, we will put those into that business case and then make the full business case available. I have no difficulty in giving the Committee access to it then. In the interim, we can say that the cost of the overall Ballykelly relocation is in the ballpark of £29·7 million of capital and £11·3 million of resource, and that amount is a commitment from the Executive.

The Chairperson (Mr Irwin): One would have thought that the very first thing that you would do is build your business case before making any further decisions. You are saying that, at this stage, that has not happened.

Mr Lavery: We have an outline business case. I have talked to economists, and they say that a job in Dundonald has the same value as a job in Fermanagh, so there is no economic benefit in moving Forest Service from Dundonald House to Inishkeen House. I can understand their argument. On the other hand, if I were living in Enniskillen or operating a local business such as a coffee shop there, I might think that there was a benefit coming my way. The business case has a real difficulty in attributing such benefits, but we know, the Department and, I think, the Committee, that placing public sector jobs more fairly and more widely across the rural community in Northern Ireland will bring a real benefit. We are seeing that already. Saying that the Department will locate its headquarters on the former Shackleton barracks site changed the marketing of that site quite dramatically. A number of years ago, there was a very limited expression of interest, but OFMDFM now reports a much more positive attitude to the Shackleton site.

The Chairperson (Mr Irwin): You are saying that it is very difficult to get a business case to stack up.

Mr Lavery: It is very difficult to get a business case to stack up in the terms of a business case. The economists will not let us put in the intangible benefits that we see, and, therefore, we have limited the business case to what is the most efficient and effective way of relocating to Ballykelly. The answer is a phased new build, with 400 seats in December 2017 and a further 200 seats in 2020.

Mr Elliott: Thanks for your presentation. How many staff in total are employed by DARD at the moment?

Ms Teague: Approximately 2,900 full-time equivalent staff.

Mr Elliott: How many of those are based at Dundonald House?

Ms Teague: In the region of 800.

Mr Elliott: So you plan to have 200 fewer staff at your new headquarters in Ballykelly.

Ms Teague: The 2,900 include staff in fisheries and Forest Service who are going to Enniskillen and Downpatrick.

Mr Elliott: I will come to Enniskillen in a wee minute. Chair, I want to follow through on your questions. If I was applying for funding for a strategic project in the rural development programme and was part of a small community group, I would not get approval without a business case and an economic appraisal. So, I am sorry, Mr Lavery, but it seems to be, "Do as I say; not as I do", because you are ignoring all the realities of good governance by putting forward a proposal for new headquarters without a business case. Is that reasonable?

Mr Lavery: What I said is that we have an outline business case, which we can, if you wish, make available to the Committee. It will be informed in due course by the costs of the actual building work as submitted in tenders, and it will then be a full business case. That is the way that you would approach any project of this kind. I have also said that a business case will not resolve the issue of exactly where you put a new departmental headquarters, because it will not weigh up the intangibles of placing it outside greater Belfast.

Mr Elliott: So you are to go ahead with the project on the basis of a business case that does not stack up. Chair, I find that incredible.

Mr Lavery: I have not said that the business case does not stack up — quite the contrary. I said that the business case will lead us to the best way of putting a departmental headquarters on the Ballykelly site and that choosing Ballykelly was the outcome of a process that weighed up around 23 locations according to nine socio-economic indicators. It looked at precisely those factors that we aim to impact: the fairer distribution of public sector jobs, local unemployment and local youth unemployment. The issues at the core of rural development were those that led us to select Ballykelly. The two areas that came out top in the process that objectively evaluated 23 areas were both in the north-west — Strabane and Limavady. The Minister chose Limavady on the basis of the availability of Executive-owned land and buildings at Shackleton barracks.

Mr Elliott: Overall, forgetting about those issues, does it stack up as a good business proposal?

Mr Lavery: I think that it does. Dundonald House is past its sell-by date. For the past couple of weeks, two of four lifts in the main lobby have been out of action. Today, you could best describe the building as inconvenient, in that you have to tour the building to look for a working convenience. It is a tired building, and we have to move. I hope that we can stay in the building until December 2017. Moving from that building requires appropriate accommodation, which could be located in greater Belfast, but the Minister has decided that, because we are a rural Department and should be close to our customers, the best place to put us is in a rural area, thereby taking the opportunity to demonstrate that you can run a Department or major public sector body from anywhere in Northern Ireland.

By demonstrating that, we will challenge other public bodies to look seriously at rural locations.

Mr Elliott: I think that you could make that stack up anywhere; you could run a Department from anywhere. I do not think that there is any reason why you could not do that. The point that I am trying to get at is this: does the proposal stack up in good governance and business terms? You have been conflicting in what you have said, Mr Lavery. Earlier, you said that you could not make a business case stack up; now, you are saying that it is a good business decision. I am confused about what you are saying.

Mr Lavery: I am saying that, at the top level, a business case will not decide for you where to put a government headquarters. When you decide on that location, as the Minister did, the business case will decide the best way of doing it; and the business case is telling us that the best way of doing it is a new build on the Ballykelly site.

Mr Elliott: You decide on a headquarters location first, and then you make the business case suit it.

Mr Lavery: I am no historian, but I imagine that the decision for all of us to sit in this room reflects a decision taken around 1920, based on the availability of land and the idea that we would form a government headquarters here. I do not think that it reflects anything else. Similarly, in time to come, when we sit in 2020 and look back from Ballykelly, we will say, "Yes, the decision to move onto the Ballykelly site reflected the availability of land and the idea that we would have a government headquarters in a rural area".

Mr Elliott: I will ask one question about Enniskillen and Forest Service. Forest Service was supposed to be coming to Enniskillen with about 100 jobs. That number seems to have drifted down to 60 after a number of years. Where did the other 40 jobs go?

Mr Lavery: I do not think that the figure of 100 is one that I have ever referenced. We talked about moving the headquarters of Forest Service, and the operating model for that headquarters is currently 60.

Mr Elliott: So, are there only 60 people there at the moment?

Mr Lavery: I believe so.

Ms Teague: There are 15 staff already there, and a further 60 are to go.

Mr Elliott: Was there only 60 there all along in Forest Service headquarters?

Ms Teague: No. Fifteen have already moved as a result of the relocation, and a further 60 are to go.

Mr Elliott: So there are going to be 75 jobs.

Mr Lavery: Yes.

Mr Poots: What are you going to do with Dundonald House?

Mr Lavery: Happily, it is not our problem; it is not our building. It is a DFP building. It will be for DFP to decide what to do; but, for instance, in the Workplace NI programme, DFP's ambition was to either refurbish Dundonald House or replace it with a building of similar scale on the Stormont estate.

Mr Poots: What purpose would that serve, if the main occupant, the Department of Agriculture, is moving out?

Mr Lavery: DFP might well wish to have other occupants. As I say, our interest would be to lobby for more Departments to look at the option that we are taking; to look at moving to rural areas and bringing the benefits of public sector employment there.

Mr Poots: OK. So, we are going to be spending £30 million on new buildings, and then we are going to spend whatever it will take to refurbish Dundonald House. So that would have difficulty in stacking up.

Mr Lavery: The business case that we are looking at is purely limited to the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development. No decision, that I am aware of, has been taken by the Executive or the Department of Finance and Personnel in respect of Dundonald House.

Mr Poots: Do you pay DFP rent for the building?

Mr Lavery: There is a notional rent, yes. It is not a hard charge at the moment.

Mr Poots: Is this going to be an invest-to-save project? Are you going to invest capital to save recurrently?

Mr Lavery: There will be an effective saving. As Mr Elliott pointed out, we intend to have initially 400 workstations in Ballykelly. Modern, appropriate accommodation will allow the use of those workstations by a larger number of staff. You do not, today, build a workstation for every person; a number of them, at any time, are going to be out with customers, farmers and so on. There will be a saving.

Mr Poots: Given the most recent issues around having to save finance, considerable voluntary early redundancies are going to be sought. Does that have any implications? I think that you are looking at 2,900 staff now. You could be looking at 2,500 staff by 2020, or perhaps fewer; I do not know. Does that have any implications on —

Mr Lavery: It does indeed, Mr Poots.

Mr Poots: I think that the initial process was done a couple of years ago. Is that going to be revised?

Mr Lavery: As I said, our effort has been to take the risk out of the project, as far as possible. We have fastened on building a 400-workstation building. We have identified today the initial 360 or so jobs that we would like to relocate there. That may change as a result of reconfiguring the Department. If it does, we will have to identify further posts to allocate to that phase 1 move to Ballykelly.

Mr Poots: Or you could revise the project downwards.

Mr Lavery: That is possible, although —

Mr Lavery: It will depend on the point at which it all becomes clear as to whether that is an option.

Mr Poots: What did the equality impact assessment say about the areas you are moving to? It strikes me that all those areas have a majority, to a greater or lesser degree, of one particular community.

Mr Lavery: I do not think that it gave us a strong view either way.

Mr T Kennedy: No. The main issues that came out, as we imagined, were about dealing with people with disabilities, for instance. There was no particular angst about the issue you mention, Mr Poots. Another issue was about people of a particular age and whether, if we were moving and they were near retirement, we would be able to accommodate that. We have factored all those things into the HR strategy to deal with them.

Mr Lavery: The other point to register is that, effectively, we are looking at a project that will result in posts currently held by people resident in the east of the Province being held in the future by people resident in the west of the Province. Both groups, by and large, are already employed in the Civil Service, and, at the Civil Service level, there will not be a change in our make-up on a community basis. We are simply going to substitute one group for another. They are, by and large, already employed in the system, and that is why we are going through a survey, which Tracey described, to identify people currently commuting from the north-west to greater Belfast who would wish to work in Ballykelly.

Mr Poots: I do not accept that at all. Look at the areas: just outside Londonderry, Enniskillen, Cookstown and Downpatrick. There is a significant propensity towards the nationalist community. I would question the equality impact assessment if it did not identify that that is an issue. I would suspect that it has not been carried out correctly.

Mr Lavery: We will look at whether there is anything in the EQIA that we could draw to the attention of the Committee on that point, but I emphasise the approach that we are taking on the fisheries position, for instance. Half the people currently doing fisheries work will relocate to the posts in south Down. The other half of those jobs will be offered to people already in the Civil Service who wish to work in the greater Downpatrick area. They will vacate posts in greater Belfast that people currently working in fisheries will move to. It is not going to change the composition of the Civil Service in the immediate future.

Mr Poots: Not in the immediate future, but, over the course of 10 years, as people retire, a lot of the jobs will be filled by people from the local community. Consequently, there will be a significant change in the workforce pattern. A degree of political engineering is taking place in creating jobs in the Agriculture Department for one section of the community.

Mr Lavery: I would not like to quarrel with your view.

Mr Poots: Could you possibly comment?

Mr Lavery: I have stated the facts as I know them.

Mrs Dobson: I want to focus a bit on HR. Tracey, you said that, for you, the biggest issue was around the staff. The biggest issue for the rest of us, or for most of us, has already been covered by Mr Poots and Mr Elliott. Anyway, regarding HR, you are moving staff in two phases: 400 in the first and 200 in the second. What are your estimates of the cost of each phase? That is for HR costs, potential redundancies and staff training, which would be required to fill specialist posts. I am thinking in particular about vets taking up posts in Ballykelly. You said that your HR strategy has been implemented, and there is a survey that does not close until Wednesday, so we have nothing to scrutinise. Will you outline how specialists, including vets, will be affected by the move to Ballykelly?

Ms Teague: The costs associated with this have been minimal to date: we have allocated a very small team — four staff — to it. That is primarily because we are doing a lot of the scoping work on the HR and developing the HR strategy. As we get the results in from the wider survey, we will try to match the staff transition plan. In other words, we will get to a place where we have staff who have to move, staff who want to go to the new locations and new staff. Then, we will really be able to work out the budget associated with the knowledge transfer that is required. So, a lot of the work we are doing now with the very small team of four staff is preparatory work.

To answer your question about specialist grades, and you mentioned vets, I need to go back to a point that we made: in the first phase for Ballykelly, there has been a definite concentration, and the majority of posts that will move will be in general administration and service. The number of specialist staff moving will be kept to a minimum. That is for the very reason that there will not be the same match among available staff elsewhere in the NICS.

In the survey that we issued, we asked staff to identify any professional and technical aspects of their particular grade and discipline. There are already some early indications that it is not just general administration staff who have indicated a willingness to work in the other four areas to where there will be relocations. So, there is still quite a bit of planning to do.

Mrs Dobson: It would be useful to have those minimal amounts available to the Committee. Do you envisage delays in the Department's operations as a result of the need to engage with potential HR appointment processes? What contingencies are you putting in place to ensure the Department's expertise? I am thinking of future emergency situations where we need to have the right people in the right place. That is crucial to our industry. So, can you outline your plan for that?

Ms Teague: I revert back to the original assessment of putting it in two phases. In the second phase, the concentration has been on retaining the people who are in post: for example, those who are in the veterinary service, the central policy group and the service delivery group. The majority of the posts that are going in the first phase are corporate services type roles, so they are in finance and HR. While I am not saying that those posts are not equally valuable, it has been part of our risk management to say that we are more likely, in the wider Civil Service, to get people with those skills and who we can much more easily carry out the knowledge transfer with, rather than the specialist skills that we need. Those people have a lot of the corporate knowledge and corporate history, particularly in policy areas and the veterinary service. That will allow us a longer lead-in time to do some of the transition work.

Mrs Dobson: So, you are confident that, were an emergency to arise, we would not be hearing that some of the staff were not in position because of the relocation to Ballykelly. You are confident that the people with the expertise would be in the right place to react quickly.

Ms Teague: At this stage, yes, with the plans that have been put in place.

Mr Byrne: I welcome the update on this long saga. Gerry, is it normal for government to have a location-specific outline business case?

Mr Lavery: By the stage of a full business case, it would be normal, because otherwise you would not be able to get the full figure work into place. My concern, as I said earlier, is that there is a natural tendency for public bodies and Departments to assume that they will locate in greater Belfast.

They are advised by a circular from DFP in, I think, about 2000, which has never, to my knowledge, been revoked, that they should consider rural locations, but we do not see that footprint emerging as you might expect it to. You still see a default position of office space being taken up in greater Belfast, to the detriment of rural areas.

Mr Byrne: I accept the intention. However, in relation to private developer-led office accommodation facilities, does that apply here, or is it that DARD has chosen a site owned by the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister and wants to build a building at its own capital cost, rather than go out into the private rental market and locate where there might be more cost-effective opportunities available?

Mr Lavery: Whether there would be a rental option is bound up with the location. When we discussed this in the early days of the project, one of the issues that was obvious to us was that, if you select greater Belfast, there is a market there and private developers will put office accommodation on that market for rental. If you select a rural location where you are likely to be the only viable long-term occupant, it is unlikely a developer is going to join with you. That is certainly a factor that will affect people’s decisions on location.

Mr Byrne: So, in summary, this is a highly specific prescribed scenario, and there was a decision taken outside of whatever rationale to locate at this particular location.

Mr Lavery: That is not totally unfair. If it were a decision taken on the basis of a full economic appraisal that included all options at all locations, you would not need a decision by the Executive on 26 June. The reason why this was at the Executive was that it had to be a decision based on a policy of dispersing public sector jobs to rural locations. That is the real basis on which the Executive took the decision. Yes, it is therefore a prescribed decision that the Department will relocate its headquarters to Ballykelly. That is what the Executive decided.

Mr Anderson: Thank you for your presentation. Tracey, a couple of questions. You talked about relocating staff to these new sites. Are you confident that you can move staff to suit where the staff want to go? Have you talked to all the staff?

Ms Teague: Do you mean the staff who are currently in post in DARD?

Mr Anderson: In Dundonald House, yes.

Ms Teague: We have asked for their preferences for where they would like to move. At this stage, the staff in post have indicated whether they want to go to the new relocation, whichever one of the four it is; whether they might go to the relocation; or whether they just cannot, for whatever reason, go to the new relocation.

Mr Anderson: Further to that, what are the results? What are the indications coming back?

Ms Teague: The indications, certainly for Ballykelly, are very high in as much as the majority of staff do not want to go. They are less so in the other three relocations. Obviously it is a concern, and that is what we are managing. We are managing it very carefully.

Mr Anderson: How do you propose to manage that?

Ms Teague: Simply, we know that we have a demand in the rest of the NICS for posts in these regional areas. We have a survey that is finishing tomorrow, and the early indications are that it is quite significant in terms of each of the four relocations and the numbers of people in the rest of the NICS who do want to move. What we have done in this survey is break that down as to where they are now, what skills they have and what grade they have. The difficult work that we will take forward is trying to match the people in post who do not want to go to people in other Departments who do want to go. I am not saying it is easy. It will be a big exercise to carry out. The lead-in time for Ballykelly allows us time to think that through and work with the business — to pick up on the other member’s point there — to make sure that business continuity is not at risk and that we are able to do the knowledge transfer during that period. It is high in terms of the staff who do not want to go to Ballykelly, but we know that there is a demand out there. The other three relocations are not as high in terms of the numbers.

Mr Anderson: You say that it is a big concern, having to manage this. What is the attitude of staff when they have this knowledge that they could be moved to somewhere they do not want to move to? How is that affecting staff at present in carrying out their work? Are they not greatly concerned?

Ms Teague: I think that they are concerned. We have been managing that by going out and speaking to staff and trying to allay some of their fears and some of their concerns. Obviously, it has issues in terms of everybody’s individual circumstances. There are issues to do with mobile staff and non-mobile staff, and we have to respect that. We have people with disabilities, and we also have issues there that we have to respect. The process that will take place is one-to-one meetings with every member of staff, whatever category they are in — whether they want to move or not — to talk through their options. Our desire is that we will do our utmost to try to make their preference for relocation work. It might not always be the case, but certainly that is the principle.

Mr Anderson: Could it come to a case where someone is being told, "That is where you are going, whether you like it or whether you don’t."?

Ms Teague: In going to the new relocation?

Mr Anderson: Say from Dundonald to Ballykelly.

Ms Teague: To Belfast?

Mr Anderson: From Dundonald, yes. Moving down to Fermanagh or Enniskillen or wherever it is.

Ms Teague: That is why I am saying that what will happen is that it is more likely that those staff who do not want to go will actually move to another Department. We will be redeploying both within DARD and within the rest of the NICS, because there are staff in other parts of the Civil Service who do want to go to those relocations.

Mr Anderson: So you will do your utmost.

Ms Teague: We will absolutely do our utmost.

Mr Anderson: Leading on from that, will there be opportunities for a voluntary early redundancy package or scheme?

Ms Teague: As a pure consequence of relocation?

Mr Anderson: Yes. As a consequence of this relocation, is any redundancy scheme being offered?

Ms Teague: That is certainly not in the plan.

Mr Lavery: There is no plan for it. It should not be necessary, to be honest. There are other, wider changes afoot in the Civil Service, but from the point of view of Ballykelly and the relocations of the Department, no, we do not see any requirement for redundancy or voluntary early exit.

Mr Anderson: So if someone would prefer to take, if the offer was there, an early redundancy rather than move to some place where they did not want to go, would that not be an option? Not at the moment? Could it be an option?

Ms Teague: It could be if the wider discussion around a voluntary exit scheme for the Northern Ireland Civil Service —

Mr Anderson: And would you as a Department be thinking of that?

Mr Lavery: We would be a participant in any wider scheme, but the issues around that wider scheme would be driven by the Budget, not by relocation. It will be a factor for some people.

Mr Anderson: That is what I am coming to in the next question.

Mr Lavery: Everybody’s individual circumstances are just that. We referred earlier to the EQIA. There will be individuals in their late 50s who perhaps want to work to 62, and they are thinking, "Well, I might therefore only be able to work to 61 and then my post goes to Ballykelly, but I want to stay in the Department because I have worked in this Department all my life." We have a lot of people who are very loyal to our Department. We will be trying to accommodate them with a post elsewhere in DARD. There will be individuals who, because of caring responsibilities or because of having a settled family life in the east of the Province, do not wish to go to Fermanagh. We will be trying to accommodate them by finding people in another Department who want to go to Fermanagh, and swapping them with that person. They may not end up working in Dundonald House, but they will end up working in, for instance, greater Belfast.

So we will be trying all the time to match people. I cannot rule out the possibility that some people therefore, looking at all the options, including taking a voluntary exit scheme, will include that in their options and say, "Yes, I’d rather do that now." That is something that they will have to work out. What I have been saying to our staff is to be very careful, in taking these major life decisions, that they are doing it for the right reason, and not to do it on the basis of a whim. As I said earlier, I waited to talk directly to my staff, and I have talked to every branch that I am responsible for. I waited until I could say, "the Executive have taken this decision. You can build your choices on it. I am 99·5% confident it is reasonable to build your choices on this decision." I did not want to be going out to staff and saying, "Well, it could happen, but there is another bit of process before we can really make our mind up." I am saying to staff that, 99 times out of 100, it would be wise to base their decision on this happening — and happening on the timescale that we are outlining to the Committee.

Mr Anderson: You touched on it there: if the Budget restraints in general, for the Civil Service as a whole, were to impact here, could you see the possibility of a downsizing operation in relation to the number of staff that you have?

Ms Teague: As Gerry said, that is associated with the Budget. That will drive how many staff we can afford.

Mr Anderson: Is that in your thoughts at any time in relation to the jobs that are being relocated?

Mr Lavery: It is in —

Mr Anderson: Are you looking at the possibility of downsizing meaning that, in the future, you could operate here, here and here with so many staff? Is that in your thoughts?

Mr Lavery: It is, and, I suppose, that is from two angles. I sincerely hope to be part of the team in front of the Committee next week on the Budget, so I do not want to steal anybody’s thunder, but —

Mr Anderson: Go ahead.

Mr Lavery: First of all, yes, it is in our thoughts, but secondly it demonstrates the importance of moving headquarters jobs. If we simply move transaction jobs — and we have all been through the experience with the DVA in Coleraine. If you have a transaction processing unit, it is very vulnerable. The higher-level jobs, the headquarters jobs — we are trying to move those to Ballykelly in an effort to show that you really need to move entire functions, top to bottom. You need to move your senior posts as part of it, so that they are sustainable in the long term. You are not simply moving something and then retracting in a number of years. That is all in our thoughts all the time. As I say, in this relocation programme, we are aligning to the Budget and to other change in the Department. It does form part of our DNA now.

Mr Anderson: You say that you are aligning to the Budget in relation to jobs. How many fewer jobs will you be aligning to? Do you know that?

Mr Lavery: I think that might be something that we touch on next week rather than this week.

Mr Anderson: OK. Thank you very much.

Mr Lavery: We need to get ministerial provision on it.

Mr McAleer: I just want to make a point. Earlier in the meeting, it was suggested that the sites of relocation would be considered more nationalist, with the implication that the decision was somehow influenced by the religious make-up of those areas. I do not share that view. Have a quick look at the NISRA information. Take the Limavady/Ballykelly area: the demographics do not suggest that it is a mostly nationalist area, for example. Even the area’s MP is not from a nationalist background. I do not share that suggestion, and I certainly would not like the implication that there was some political or —

Mr Poots: It is seven miles from Londonderry.

The Chairperson (Mr Irwin): OK. Thank you very much for your presentation.