asked the Minister for Finance if he will give details of the present position in respect of the plans for the decentralisation of Government offices.
5.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Government Office Decentralisation.
4.
asked the Minister for Finance when it is expected that work will commence on the construction of new offices in Galway for the Department of Defence.
6.
asked the Minister for Finance when it is expected that work will commence on the construction of new offices in Letterkenny for the Department of Social Welfare.
With the permission of the Ceann Comhairle, I propose to take Questions Nos. 4 to 6, inclusive, together, as the proposals for the construction of new offices in Galway and Letterkenny for the Departments of Defence and Social Welfare respectively form part of the proposed decentralisation programme.
The plans for the decentralisation of Government offices are being reviewed as part of the general review of expenditure programmes which the Government put in hands on assuming office. I expect that the review will be completed shortly.
That is a scandalous reply, raising very serious problems for the areas concerned. What is the present situation with regard to the intention of the Department of the Environment to transfer approximately 200 of their staff to Ballina and the decision to transfer An Foras Forbartha headquarters to Cork city?
The reply relates solely to Government offices. As An Foras Forbartha is a semi-State body, the reply does not relate to it. I will give the Deputy the information about Ballina. The position is that the purchase of a site has been completed and the preparation of contract documents is well advanced. In view of the initial statement made by the Deputy and before he puts a question about the position in general, I believe it is right for any incumbent Government to examine schemes such as this with all due speed, given that the total cost is approximately £50 million. It would not be right to rush ahead with the expenditure of such a substantial sum of money without satisfying ourselves that it is being spent in the best possible way to get the maximum benefit for everyone. It is in that light, in the interests of the best use of taxpayers' funds, that we decided to undertake this review.
Is this review being conducted solely in the rather narrow context of the immediate financial requirements of the budget or is it based on some new regional development policy? If it is the latter, is the Minister in a position to indicate what attitude he or the Government are taking towards a programme of decentralisation?
The Government are very much in favour of maximum regional development. However, whether this programme, costing a substantial sum of money, is necessarily the best way of achieving regional objectives which would probably be common cause among all parties is something that the Government are addressing themselves to at the present time. I expect to be in a position to report to the Government in the very near future and they will then be in a position to assess the situation, bearing in mind not just financial considerations but also social, regional and other considerations.
Is the Minister aware that tenders were in for the offices of the Department of Agriculture in Cavan town? What is the position in regard to those tenders.
I understand that tenders have already been received for the initial site development work, not necessarily for the entire project. I do not know the exact date on which tenders were received, but if the Deputy said they were received before he left office I am prepared to accept that as being true.
What action will the Minister take on those tenders?
As was obvious from my original reply, no action will be taken until decisions have been taken on the overall review.
The Minister had better take some action before he comes down for the by-election.
Is the Minister telling the House that since the change of Government a review has taken place? Have the site acquisition and the planning of the development been stopped and, if so, what has happened to the planning teams appointed for the developments in each area?
The position is that the acquisition of sites where a legal commitment had already been entered into at the time the review was commenced in July is continuing. Where consultants had been taken on to do work, again under a legal commitment, their work has been allowed to proceed. Obviously, we do not wish to break any contractual arrangements which have been entered into. Any further steps which would fall to be taken must await the final decision of the Government as a result of the review we are now undertaking. To repeat what I have said in response to the first question, I intend to have this review completed and the decisions taken as quickly as possible. Whatever decision is taken, nobody's interests would be served by prolonged delay.
In relation to the Letterkenny area, is the Minister aware that a site has been provided by the local authority, that information has been sought by Letterkenny Urban Council from the Board of Works as far back as last August and, to date, that information has not been given? Would the Minister further agree that the siting of the Government offices in Letterkenny, a decision taken by the previous Government, was to alleviate the unemployment situation there and to benefit the many employees of the public service who must travel to work in the city of Dublin? Would the Minister keep in mind that this undertaking should be a priority and must not fall under the axe of anticipated cutbacks?
I will certainly bear in mind what the Deputy has said and am sure that the Government will also, in the light of the situation in Letterkenny. However, I would point out that there is nothing unusual about local authorities indicating that a site would be available. This is the case in many of the instances of centres to which decentralisation was to take place.
Having regard to the fact that the Minister has said that the overall programme is estimated to cost £50 million, could I ask him not to take the simplistic view of not proceedings with the programme because it would save £50 million? I take it that he is aware that that would not be true?
Of course, I am aware. There obviously are certain commitments entered into which involve the payment of money which the Government cannot legally escape from paying.
No, apart from that.
They would not come to a substantial sum. I must give a complete answer to the Deputy's question. The review in which the Government are concerned is designed to achieve the best possible use of £50 million, if we have that money available, bearing in mind that that money will, almost in its entirety, have to be borrowed abroad at substantial interest rates. We must, as a community, ensure that we get a good rate of return, economic and social, from any expenditure of that size.
The Government will.
It is quite legitimate that a new Government should wish to review any major programme of that sort.
Can I take it that the attitude and policy of this Government towards decentralisation or, to put it another way, assisting the regional development of this country, depends on the outcome of the review to which the Minister now refers?
The Deputy should be aware that this is only part of the overall policy of regional development. The Government recognise that it is an important part of it and regional development considerations will be given significant weight in the decisions which the Government will take on the review which I have indicated will be undertaken with all due speed.
Considering the progress which had been made prior to the change of Government on 30 June last, can the Minister tell the House why there was need for a delay of five months with, as yet, no news of that review, particularly as the matter was raised by Deputy Wilson and, in at least one case, tenders were already sought and in others sites have been acquired and planning was at a very advanced stage?
The Deputy is being somewhat naive if he thinks that a review of this proportion concerning such a massive investment of public funds can be taken in the space of a month. It requires careful examination in consultation with all the Departments concerned, to see how best we can review the situation with a view to getting the maximum return on the investment.
Procrastination.
The Minister has referred to a month, but I understand that this review has already taken five months. Would the Minister confirm that in line with his stated party policy, decentralisation is a priority area and that the previous Government's construction programme for decentralisation should be treated as a priority?
Decentralisation is amongst a number of priorities which this Government must take into account in the use of very scarce public funds.
Am I to take it from the answer the Minister has given to the House that the brief which was given to the architects in the Office of Public Works to proceed with the designing of the new offices for the Department of Defence in Galway has now been withdrawn and that work on the design of this new building has, in fact, stopped?
No. Work on the contract documents in this case is well advanced and proceeding.
What has the Minister's Department done with regard to the contractors who have tendered for the site works development in Cavan? Has he informed them about delays, or reviews, or has he ignored them completely?
I cannot say what information the individual contractors have received at this stage. However, if the Deputy wishes to have that information, I will endeavour to obtain it for him.
Could I ask the Minister——
I am sorry, Deputy. We have spent too long on this question.