Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 1 Dec 1981

Vol. 331 No. 4

Private Members' Business. - Decentralisation of Government Offices: Motion.

Mr. O'Malley

I move:

That Dáil Éireann condemns the decision of the Government not to proceed as rapidly as possible with the programme already underway to decentralise Government offices in the following regions: Limerick, Ennis, Nenagh, Waterford, Dundalk, Sligo, Letterkenny, Cavan, Ballina, Killarney, Athlone and Galway; and in view of the serious social and economic repercussions of this decision, calls on the Government to make an immediate announcement that the decentralisation scheme will proceed as planned.

This motion asks the House to condemn the decision of the Government not to proceed as rapidly as possible with the programme already underway and which was announced some time ago to decentralise various Government offices to about ten locations. Because of the serious social and economic repercussions of their decision it asks the House to call on the Government to go ahead with the plan as already announced.

An amendment has been put down in the name of the Minister for Finance that from its wording seems to envisage it is not the intention of the Government to proceed with this plan, although they say currently that the matter is subject to examination by one of these innumerable study groups about which we hear so much nowadays where action is sought to be deferred. It is becoming increasingly clear that the deferring of action is synonymous so far as this Government are concerned with the non-implementation of the plan or objective they have announced will be deferred. I will deal later with the wording of the amendment. It is curious and significant that it should be worded in this way.

The history of the proposals of the previous Government for decentralisation started with the publication early in 1978 of a White Paper when it was announced that the Government intended to decentralise at least 2,000 public service jobs to the provinces. Work was done on that over a period of some years. On 16 February 1980 the then Taoiseach, Deputy Haughey, in his presidential address to the Fianna Fáil Ard Fheis, announced that the Government would give effect to their decision to implement what was described as a comprehensive policy on decentralisation of Government offices.

The details of that proposal were announced by the then Minister for the Public Service, Deputy Gene Fitzgerald, in this House during a debate on the economy on 22 October 1980. The details were that 1,300 people from the Revenue Commissioners would be sent to Limerick, Nenagh and Ennis; that 700 from the Department of Posts and Telegraphs would be sent to Waterford and Dundalk; 400 from the Department of Social Welfare to Sligo and Letterkenny; 200 from the Department of Defence to Galway, although that had been announced some time previously by Deputy Molloy when he was Minister for Defence; 150 from the Department of Agriculture to Cavan; 200 from the Department of the Environment to Ballina; 150 from the Department of Education to Athlone and 110 from the Department of Justice to Killarney. This made a total of 3,210, a substantial number of people and which justified the description by Deputy Haughey as a comprehensive policy of decentralisation of Government services. That announcement was welcomed universally. It was welcomed just as heartily in Dublin as it was in the areas that were to be the recipients of these people who were being decentralised. The pressures in Dublin had built up to such an extent that it was and is clearly recognised that, if anything, there is serious over-concentration of office or administrative-type employment in this city.

Work was put in train very rapidly after Deputy Fitzgerald announced the details on 22 October 1980. Detailed consultations were held by him and other Ministers with the Office of Public Works, who would have to be the main instrument of implementing the decision. I am glad to say that quite rapid progress was made. Sites were acquired by June of this year in virtually all the centres and in some of them it had gone beyond that stage. Tenders were received and in some cases contracts were placed for the preliminary work. In one or two cases work had actually started. There was every indication of the commitment of the Government at the time to the implementation of that programme and this was widely welcomed.

It came as something of a bombshell to everyone when news began to trickle through from July onwards that this Government had no such commitment to this plan, that they proposed at least to defer it and to have further studies carried out. When questions were asked here earlier this month about the matter — unfortunately that was the earliest opportunity Deputies had to ask questions — the gist of the answer they got from the Minister for Finance was that the decentralisation plans were being reviewed as part of the general review of expenditure programmes which the Government put in hand on assuming office. He said he hoped the review would be completed shortly.

From the replies to the many questions asked, it appears that the principal or only reason for this deferment, which unhappily we suspect will mean the knocking of these proposals after a time, was the question of cost. We were told by the Minister for Finance that the cost of the programme would be £50 million. It may well be that the cost would be £50 million in the sense that buildings would have to be erected, but the net cost to the Exchequer would be nil because if the premises were not built in Limerick, Galway, Waterford or the other places listed they would have to be built in Dublin.

The cost of building in central Dublin is astronomical, the cost of sites is huge and the cost of actual construction is much higher than elsewhere in the country. Rather than costing £50 million, it may be that the Exchequer by implementing this programme would save £5 million, £10 million or £15 million. That is the correct way to assess this in terms of cost. Of course, the benefits are much wider than just the money saved on construction. What the Minister for Finance has said assumes that all the building would be done at expense to the public capital budget when it was envisaged by the previous Government that part of this capital work would be financed from private sources, as it is quite feasible to do.

I wish to deal with the kind of situation we are faced with in Dublin and the regional imbalance that is such a dominant feature of the country. Some 30 per cent of the population of the Republic of Ireland live in the greater Dublin area, by which I include Dublin city and county. This must be one of the highest proportions in any capital city. Even an enormous city like London constitutes only 12 to 14 per cent of the population of Britain. Tokyo with a population of 11 million only constitutes 9 per cent of the population of Japan. They have enormous problems with a city of that size. We can readily see the degree of imbalance that exists with 30 per cent of our population living in the capital city and suburbs.

The periodical Administration, volume 26 No. 2, 1978, shows that on the latest figures available although Dublin has 30 per cent of the population of the Republic it has 59 per cent of the office jobs. There is a corresponding deficit in opportunity for that type of employment in the remainder of the country. The same article goes on to give the percentage of the headquarters of the offices of various types of organisations located in Dublin. If one compares this with other countries, there is a frightening imbalance. The article shows, on page 188, that Government Departments are 100 per cent in Dublin, embassies 100 per cent, State-sponsored bodies 86 per cent, commercial State bodies 90 per cent, trade, professional and other organisations 93 per cent, trade unions 93 per cent, large public quoted companies 90 per cent, banks 95 per cent, higher purchase firms 71 per cent, insurance companies 100 per cent, publishing companies 89 per cent, advertising agencies 97 per cent. It is not surprising, in the light of those statistics, that Dublin has twice the percentage of office-type job as population although its population is greatly inflated as a proportion of the population of the country.

There is a visible imbalance in provincial Ireland between the relative availability of industrial manufacturing employment — I use the word "relative" advisedly because there is not nearly enough in any region — and the almost total non-availability of administrative type office employment or white collar employment. One of the results of over-concentration of population in Dublin is the impossibility of conditions which have developed in recent years. The argument is summed up in a letter published in today's edition of The Irish Times. It is from the Westland Row Community Council and states:

The Westland Row Community Council notes with concern the recently reported decision of the Government to delay or abandon the programme of decentralisation of Government offices.

Our area has been blighted by Office-block developments which dwarf the local dwellings, choke the streets with parked cars and displace housing and employment opportunities for local people. The demand for sites for office development in the area shows no sign of abating. This pressure has raised the price of land which is needed for housing and industrial activity to the extent that these land-uses are prohibitively expensive. Most of the recent offices built in the area have been let to Government Departments.

We regret very much that decentralisation of Government offices is not to proceed as planned; decentralisation would reduce the demand for office space which has led speculators to ravage our community. So an indirect benefit for the inner city would accompany the direct benefits flowing from the regions selected for decentralisation. The cost of land and building costs must surely be lower almost anywhere than in the centre of Dublin. Given that there is no shortage of Government custom for office blocks being finished now, this would mean a saving for the Exchequer, which is surely not to be ignored. We have written to An Taoiseach and other local TDs to enlist their assistance in having these points investigated. — Yours, etc.,

Geraldine Murphy,

Secretary,

Westland Row

Community Council,

c/o 9 Westland Row, Dublin.

That letter sums up the kernel of the argument. The very things provincial Ireland is crying out for and patently badly needs are the very things central Dublin is crying out against and does not want. The things that would revitalise much of provincial Ireland are choking Dublin today. In these circumstances how can any Government seriously not implement the programme which Fianna Fáil in Government had laid out in such detail over the last year or two? I ask in all honesty how can it not be implemented in view of the benefit to Dublin and the regions involved?

The argument in relation to cost is spurious because the cost is much greater if it is not implemented. All the accommodation would have to be provided in Dublin and this would be at a greater cost. It will put further pressure on the infrastructure in Dublin which is not able to bear existing pressures. The infrastructure in the places I listed when I read Deputy Fitzgerald's announcement of October 1980 is not fully utilised.

I doubt if there is any Member from outside of Dublin who is not approached weekly by constituents who have sons or daughters in the civil service. They plead and beg with TDs to try to get their children out of Dublin, if possible, to be transferred to somewhere near their homes. In many cases the request of the parents and young civil servants is that if they cannot get back to somewhere near their homes they will go anywhere to get out of Dublin. Reasonable steps will have to be taken to avoid the unhappiness, loneliness and misery that many young people experience because they have been brought up to the city in hordes from all parts of the country. What we are asking the Government to implement is a reasonable step. It will ease the life of TDs from every constituency outside of Dublin. It is one of the most constant requests we receive.

The sites which are available and have been acquired in all these centres are far superior to anything available in Dublin. They have been provided by local authorities at no profit, at whatever it cost them to acquire the site, whereas in Dublin the Board of Works cannot acquire worthwhile sites from the local authority, who do not have them as a general rule. They have to buy in the open market from developers and others who may have been speculating in property and endeavouring to maximise their profit and the cost of the site.

As well as good sites being available in all these areas about which I have spoken, some of the sites are in parts of cities or towns that have become derelict over the years where, unfortunately, there was not the demand for office development to enable them to be redeveloped as in the case of Dublin and, to a lesser extent, Cork. My own city of Limerick is a good example of that, where a very large site in a very favourable central location in the city was made available by the local authority to the Board of Works without any difficulty and where the building of a 170,000 square feet office block as was proposed for Limerick would have the effect of revitalising — in a way that will never be done, unfortunately, by the private sector — a whole area of that ancient city which has fallen into disrepair in the last number of decades.

I have here before me numerous extracts from NESC reports published over the last several years which I could quote to the House at some length if that was thought necessary, but I feel I should not take up the time of the House in reading out all these quotations. It suffices for me to say that the constant view and pressure from the NESC over the years in discussing these matters of regional imbalance, urban development and so on, was that if any one thing that needed to be done was obvious it was to move as much administrative type employment out of Dublin as possible. I have long quotations here of what the British, for example, have done over the years in getting things out of London, what the Swedes have done in getting them out of Stockholm, what the French have done in getting such a huge proportion of their civil service and general administration out of Paris. The list is almost endless and at the bottom of that list, unhappily for us, comes Ireland where we have tended to concentrate all these employment opportunities more and more in Dublin.

In the past four years during the term of office of the previous Government, while this proposal to move 3,210 people was obviously the major proposal, nonetheless many of us as Ministers in our own Departments were able to decentralise small parts of Departments or small sections of semi-State bodies to the provinces with some worthwhile results. I could give a list of some of these related to my own Department, but I want to concentrate on one, which is the electronic testing facility of the Institute for Industrial Research and Standards. This is a wholly new section of the IIRS. It had to be established from scratch, and I gave a direction to the IIRS board that they were to establish it outside Dublin city and county. After some misgivings — one has to keep up the pressure in these matters — the IIRS finally went along with that and decided that the best site that they could see in Ireland bar none was the campus of the NIHE in Limerick, an institution which was rapidly acquiring a reputation for itself in terms of technology and innovation and which has attracted on to its campus two high technology electronic companies both of whom are just about to go into production.

It was the ideal location for such an undertaking, which was announced several months before the change of Government and all the arrangements were being put in train. But, lo and behold, what happens in the month of July after the Government changes? An announcement is made that the IIRS electronics laboratory will not now be going to Limerick, it will be established in Ballymun in Dublin where the existing facilities of the IIRS are extremely overcrowded and where the opportunities for further expansion are very limited, to say the least. I was rather upset about that. I need hardly add that I thought it was a foolish decision to make, but my work was done for me by two of the Fine Gael Deputies for Limerick East, Deputy Kemmy and Deputy O'Donnell, who howled to high heaven. Being in the privileged position that he is, with all the privilege of membership of the Fine Gael Party without too many of the liabilities, Deputy Kemmy's voice or view prevailed and after an interval of three or four weeks the Minister for Industry and Energy announced that the decision to rescind the original decision was itself being rescinded and that the original decision would now stand. I suggest to the Government tonight that the change of mind they had in regard to the IIRS in Limerick would be welcomed very much if it was exercised equally in relation to the 3,210 jobs involved here because the arguments are exactly the same and they are just as valid as they were in relation to the IIRS in Limerick. I hope — I do not know — that this decision of the Government to rescind the plan of the last Government for the decentralisation will not extend to An Foras Forbartha in Cork, but I fear that that might well happen.

The mentality of the present Government in relation to things happening outside Dublin is demonstrated amply by their attitude in relation to the IIRS in Limerick which project was quashed within some weeks of their going into office and their announcement in relation to these plans which was made again within weeks of their going into office. If we want to show the double mentality involved we need not confine ourselves simply to administrative jobs of this kind. Manufacturing and similar type jobs outside Dublin are getting a pretty rough time from this Government also in the few short months that they are in office. We all recall what happened in relation to the Tuam sugar factory which the Government have succeeded in getting the House to close down by one vote, that again of Deputy Kemmy. In the last few days it has begun to trickle out that the power station which I announced for Arigna based on native coal, which certainly was going ahead up to the time we left office at the end of June, is now to be scrapped. The ITGWU, who apparently discovered this yesterday, are very anxious to meet the Minister for Industry and Energy in relation to the matter.

It is deplorable in a time such as this, with the possibility of further energy shortages, that a proposal to utilise the limited coal resources we have in this country by the erection of a 45 MW station at Arigna is being knocked. It is another example of this hostile attitude to things that are not happening outside Dublin that coal — imported, of course — will now be burned in Moneypoint in Clare and perhaps in one of the Dublin stations. At the very time that that is happening we hear also that the new briquette factory which the last Government authorised about two years ago for Ballyforan on the Galway-Roscommon border has now been knocked also.

These moves are tragic for the areas concerned. I mention them to demonstrate the lack of anxiety on the part of this Government in relation to activity of this kind under public control which is outside of this city and the lack of commitment to such development, whether through administrative, white collar employment, or any other kind of employment. When the announcement was made in Limerick in October 1980, or when Deputy Fitzgerald's announcement was read in Limerick, I am glad to say that a committee was formed there representing no less that 20 worthwhile bodies in the city and region who gave themselves the task, as it were, of trying to facilitate the movement of about 1,000 civil servants to Limerick because they realised there would be many problems and difficulties encountered. Great credit is due to them for what they did. On the change of Government this summer they wrote to the new Minister for the Public Service offering their assistance as a local liaison group to ensure the smooth transfer of the Revenue employees to Limerick. The Minister's reply was very brief. He simply noted their offer of assistance, which he said could be taken up in the future if required. This reply, as they put it to me, coupled with the many disturbing reports of shelving the transfer, has caused great concern throughout the community in Limerick.

What I say about Limerick is equally valid in each of the other cases. While the numbers in Limerick may be larger the fact of the matter is that all of the others, even where the numbers are smaller, are to their own community proportionately of equal importance. This is especially so in a place like Letterkenny which is cut off to such an extent. It is particularly so in a place like Cavan because of the difficulties that town has encountered for some time due to its proximity to the Border. The Limerick people go on to say that their committee, which manifestly represents the views of many organisations and a cross-section of the community, is perturbed by the Minister's reply and by the recent setting up of a committee to review the funding of the decentralisation programme. They say that they feel very strongly that both moves are aimed at deferring the transfer and may lead to a total cancellation. They want it known that in no circumstances will they contemplate the cancellation of this transfer nor will they contemplate indefinite deferral. They say that every delay deprives Limerick of many benefits and considerable spending power and they elaborate on that in some detail.

It is perfectly evident that the case in favour of the proposals of the previous Government, which had begun to be implemented on the ground in all cases, is a compelling one and that no contrary case has been or can be made against it. I would say that we have it in our power here in this House to compel the Government to go ahead with these plans which are demanded all over the country and equally demanded in Dublin. The House can be sure that all Fianna Fáil Deputies who are here will vote for this motion and, if the motion is passed, the Government will have no option but to implement these plans at once.

Therefore the question remains whether the Independents who sit in this House are prepared to support this motion. I should like to address a few remarks to them in particular. For example, to Deputy Kemmy I would say that, with his rather unhappy record of voting in this House, if he fails to support this motion he will be driving 1,000 jobs out of Limerick city as well as 2,210 out of various other towns and cities in provincial Ireland. It is a matter for him and his conscience to face up to, but let him be aware of what he is doing before he does it. It may not come as any great surprise to any of us, perhaps it should not, that Deputy Kemmy could vote to prevent 1,000 jobs being brought into the city he represents. It may not be all that surprising because a man who could, when he was free to vote whichever way he wanted to, voted to increase VAT by 50 percent, to close the Tuam Sugar Factory, to raise the school entry age — incidentally all of which were carried by one vote and, therefore, by his vote — is not beyond keeping those 1,000 jobs out of Limerick and the other 2,210 out of all the other places. But I am putting him and the various other Independents on notice now.

This is clearly the sort of motion that Deputy Sherlock should support. Otherwise all the things he has been saying for years are meaningless and he paints himself as big a hypocrite as some of the others who put themselves in that situation. I hope he is not, I believe he is not, I am sure he is not and that he will support this motion. Deputy Dublin Bay-Rockall Loftus has frequently put himself on record and indeed gone to great extremes to complain about certain types of development in Dublin and their undesirability — the way Dublin was becoming polluted and overcrowded. Here he has a glorious opportunity to help his own city, the environmental welfare of which he has striven to protect with such zeal for so long. I hope he will grasp that opportunity because the people of Dublin will not thank him for having another few thousand civil servants in on top of them unless he does that. Equally Deputy Browne must be concerned about the inability of the city and county of Dublin to cope with and to cater for all the people who now live here. It must be obvious to him, as it is to everyone else, that this programme of decentralisation is as vital and beneficial to Dublin as it is to the recipient towns and villages. Of course, I would remind Deputy Blaney that Letterkenny in his constituency stands to benefit substantially by this programme if implemented and will lose out very heavily if not. In those circumstances I call on those Independent Deputies to exercise common sense and show loyalty to the people who in each case elected them by coming into the lobbies tomorrow evening to vote in support of this motion, the compelling truth of which is so evident to everybody.

Minister for Finance (Mr. Bruton)

I move amendment No. 1:

To delete all words after "Dáil Éireann" and substitute:—

"accepts the necessity in the context of the present difficult economic situation to review expenditure programmes including the decentralisation programme to ensure the best possible return for public investment; and also accepts that the review of the decentralisation programme should take into consideration in addition both the need for balanced regional development and the improvement of services to the public."

I am very glad this motion has been moved here this evening by Deputy O'Malley. As a result of its being put down we have an opportunity of discussing in this House the decentralisation programme which is a very important part of the Public Capital Programme inherited by the present Government from the previous one. I say that deliberately because it is worth recalling that there has never been a debate in this House on this decentralisation programme. Even if the money to finance this programme — as it will and would be — is borrowed in its entirety from foreign banks it will be the Irish taxpayer who ultimately will repay the cost. It is important before undertaking the investment of such a substantial sum of money — and there are many other ways that the money might be invested if it were not invested in this way — that we should have a debate here in this House. No debate took place on this matter before the previous Government committed themselves to it.

The Government have behaved in a logical fashion in deciding, in the first instance, that when they came into office in July they would not necessarily be committed to all of the programmes that they inherited from the previous administration. After all, we were a new Government, elected with a new mandate, and had the responsibility to examine for ourselves whether the programme put forward by the previous Government, who had after all been defeated in the election, was the right programme to proceed with. The Government behaved in the only way possible by undertaking this review. As I have indicated in my response to questions put by a number of Deputies, I and the Government accept that this review must be carried out quickly. We accept that there must be no undue delay in coming to decisions about this matter. What is important is that expenditures of such substantial sums of money — £50 million at a minimum — must be properly examined by the elected Government and properly debated here in this House. I am glad to say that they are to be debated tonight and tomorrow night. I do not believe that we should rush into commitments of such substantial sums of taxpayers' money without such a proper and detailed review.

I would like to return to the point that the bulk of this money will in fact be borrowed. Most of it will be borrowed from abroad. As a nation we will have to pay the interest on that money. Before we embark on such a substantial expenditure we must satisfy ourselves that we have the capacity to repay the debts we incur for that purpose and, in the meantime, pay the interest at very substantial rates on the international market which the loan to us of that money would require us to meet. Having said that, let me say that what the Government are doing is reviewing this programme. We have not decided to depart from it or abandon any part of it. We have decided that it should be reviewed in detail before we proceed with it. That is the appropriate way to proceed. Also, a programme such as this has serious implications for the staff involved. There are people, some of whom as Deputy O'Malley has indicated, would want to move. But there are many people whose presence in the new centres is absolutely essential to the proper functioning of the offices because of the seniority they hold in the branches of the public service which are to be decentralised. It is essential that they move if the offices are to move. As I understand it, there was not sufficient consultation undertaken with the various associations as to how this matter might be dealt with. This delay in considering the matter affords a valuable and necessary opportunity for the type of consultation that is necessary to ensure that whatever programme is embarked upon has the support and co-operation of the staff involved.

Given the resources and other considerations involved in decentralisation the Government make no apology for their current review and re-examination of these proposals. It is important to set the question of decentralisation of Government offices in context at the outset. Decentralisation of Government offices to improve services to the public is a long-standing feature of public administration here. It is perhaps not widely known that almost 40 per cent of the civil service is already located in provincial centres. I am talking here about some 23,000.

Mr. O'Malley

Postmen. Where else would they be located?

Mr. Bruton

Is the Deputy suggesting that there are 23,000 postmen in the country? Only a tiny fraction of these, under 500 of the total, are in fact located in provincial centres as a result of the policy of decentralisation for its own sake. Instead they represent staff being decentralised not for the sake of decentralisation but because locating them in provincial centres provides the best means of administering the services involved. These people do not involve only postmen but the staff of the Departments of Agriculture, Social Welfare, Fisheries and Forestry and the Revenue Commissioners. This is the way decentralisation should be. We should disperse staff throughout the country not because we decide that we should decentralise for the sake of decentralisation but because locating them in particular centres is the best way to give the service that the public need in the most efficient manner possible.

Of course one must recognise that in embarking on any programme of relocation of Government services, central Government services located in Dublin allow relatively easy access for the public to them from all parts of the country, and this is particularly the case in respect of specialised services where the number of people involved would not be large enough to allow them to be broken up into individual parts for individual sections of the country. The national transport grid does afford relatively easy access for the public from all parts of the country to Dublin. One must be sure, in embarking on any policy of decentralisation, that one does not end up worsening the service to the public. If one relocates in some part of Donegal an office serving the people of the entire country one is likely to find that people from Cork who want to avail of the service in that office are going to find it a lot more difficult to get to Donegal than to get to Dublin, and of course Dublin is nearer to them and the transport system to Dublin is relatively better than transport to Donegal. So in any programme of this sort we must make sure that at least we go as far as maintaining existing standards of services. This is one of the reasons for reviewing the programme that the new Government inherited from their predecessors. We decided to undertake this review within two weeks of office. We did not say that any or all of it was necessarily wrong. We did say that we, as the elected Government, have to make up our minds as to what we believe is right both from the point of view of cost and service to the public. We would be failing in our duty if we simply took over, willy-nilly, what the previous Government had decided to do. They were defeated in the election and we were elected and we must make up our own minds about it. We undertook this review to fulfil the responsibilities that we were elected to fulfil. That does not involve simply accepting what we inherited from the previous Government.

If Deputy O'Malley were to come into office succeeding a Government of another party he would not be bound to accept every decision taken by his predecessor. He would adopt the view that having been elected by the public it was his duty to satisfy himself that what he had inherited was right. That is what we are doing in this instance. We ae satisfying ourselves about the policy that has been undertaken. If we did less than that we would not be doing our duty.

I have mentioned the matter of cost and I would point out that the programme which we inherited from the previous Government would cost over £50 million for construction alone. But that is not the end of the story. Other costs will inevitably arise and all of them will have to be borne by the Exchequer and, ultimately, by the taxpayer. These additional costs include removal costs arising from the transfer to the 12 centres concerned of 3,000 people. It is an established practice that the cost of such transfers are reimbursed to the public servants involved by their employers, mainly the taxpayers. The relocation of staff would be on a voluntary basis, but, as with previous decentralisation, the staff's costs on moving would be borne by the State. In the case of householders these removal costs would include the cost of selling an existing house and buying another, auctioneers' and solicitors' fees and stamp duty and bridging finance. For all categories of staff, the costs of advance visits to secure accommodation and of furniture removal would also have to be paid. Obviously, the actual costs would depend on the individual circumstances of the transferee. Based on numbers and grades designated for transfer, they are likely to come to at least another £4 million or £5 million, which brings the cost to £54 million or £55 million.

Secondly, the construction of the offices themselves will create an immediate demand for the development of related infrastructural services — communications, power, water and the like. That has a cost on which I am not in a position to put a figure, but the Deputies opposite will agree that it would be significant.

Thirdly, the needs of the staff and their families to be transferred would also create an immediate demand for additional infrastructures and services — houses, roads and so forth. The resources available to undertake such development are not unlimited and the need to develop such services in a chosen centre may well delay the provision of similar services elsewhere if, as a result of a very big increase in population in one centre, brought about by decentralisation, one may, in a given county, have to divert moneys for water, sewerage and so on to that town and away from other towns in the same county. That will not necessarily make the county as a whole any better off. In fact, it may well mean that the level of services to the existing population in that county will be less good than they would otherwise have been, unless substantial additional resources are devoted to the needs of that county.

There were a number of omissions from Deputy O'Malley's speech. He undertook to parse and analyse my motion, with a view to demonstrating that, in fact, I was totally opposed to decentralisation. He must have forgotten what he said at the outset, because at no stage did he return to the terms of my motion, or attempt in any way to fulfil his intention in the matter of proving, by textual analysis, that I believed other than what I said I believed. He also did not make a point which may well be made by Deputies opposite and which was made, by inference, by the Deputies during Question Time on the matter, this was by reference to the original intention that the decentralisation programme would be financed, as far as possible, from funds outside public capital programme — in other words, by private funds. Public advertisements were issued, inviting private developers, financial institutions and building contractors to make proposals. Several firms expressed interest. The majority expressed interest in providing the accommodation on a leased basis. However, when detailed discussions took place — and the Deputies opposite may not be aware of this — two problems arose which are worth bearing in mind in assessing the potential savings from this source. First, there was the insistence by some of the developers that they, and not the Government, should manage the projects from the beginning, using their own architects and design teams. In other words, the safeguards which usually apply in respect of public money in regard to accepting the lowest tender and ensuring fair play in every way in regard to the use of public money would not apply in those cases. There would not be the normal supervisory role for the Office of Public Works in ensuring that costs are kept in proper balance. As this House should be aware, the Office of Public Works are very strict in regard to cost over-runs in public sector contracts for which they are responsible — a degree of care which is not taken, I might say, either in the private sector or, indeed, in some of the public sector enterprises which do not come within the purview of the Office of Public Works.

Secondly — and this is, perhaps, the most interesting point about the so-called very easy money which was going to be obtained from private developers — there was almost unanimous insistence from the private developers that the rent levels and rent reviews which would be charged on these premises in the provincial centres would be the same as chargeable for prime office space in Dublin. This demolishes the point which Deputy O'Malley was making so plausibly that one would save money by decentralisation of these offices because one would be able to build them more cheaply than in Dublin city. On the basis of the rents which the private developers were prepared to charge, that was not the case. Perhaps, on reconsideration — and perhaps as a result of the review being undertaken by the present Government — the developers may see that if they are to get this decentralisation they may have to improve their offer. Perhaps, as a result of our action they may be prepared to offer more reasonable terms than they were prepared to offer on the basis of the programme outlined by the previous Government. So far, that has not happened. One cannot glibly say, as Deputy O'Malley seems to infer, that one can, in fact, save money in this way if the costs would be just as great in the provincial centres as in the city of Dublin.

I accept fully that there is a need to disperse to the maximum extent service employment throughout the country. We already have a programme of assistance to disperse — or decentralise, if you like — manufacturing employment, through the differential aids given by the Industrial Development Authority to mount the location of manufacturing outside Dublin, the largest aids being given in the areas most remote from Dublin and the least aids being given in Dublin. No similar incentives exist for the dispersal or decentralisation of service, as distinct from manufacturing, employment. There is, therefore, a case for considering what the public sector can do in the matter of giving a lead to other service employers by decentralising their employment. The Government accept this and this consideration will be taken into account when the Government come to decisions on this matter, as they must do soon.

I accept, also, the very valid point made by Deputy O'Malley, one which I have made in this House on a number of occasions, that Ireland is somewhat top heavy, in that there is an undue concentration of population in the city and county of Dublin and, perhaps, in the surrounding counties which are now experiencing the overspill from Dublin. One must, however, recognise that there is also a need for employment in Dublin. In fact, the most substantial increase in unemployment in recent times, with not many exceptions, has been in the Dublin area and there is a need for construction employment in the Dublin area. Many workers from my own constituency, Kildare, and even from Deputy Wilson's constituency, travel to Dublin every day for employment in the construction industry. It would be wrong to infer, as it is assumed that Deputy O'Malley infers, that there is no problem as far as finding employment in Dublin is concerned. It is ironic that he should be making the case which he is making, because he is the Minister who decided that IDA grants should be given in Dublin for industry in the Dublin area. He recognised the problem which he now seems to ignore, that there is need for projects to create employment in Dublin, as well as in Limerick and other centres. One must bear in mind in weighing up this programme the growth and acuteness of unemployment and the lack of alternatives for many unemployed people in Dublin.

Deputy O'Malley referred to matters concerning electricity. The decisions which have been taken, or may be taken, in regard to electricity, do not come within this motion. As a nation we cannot ignore that our existing capacity to produce electricity results in a production of 40 per cent more than our needs, that we use only about 60 per cent of our capacity. That gap is wider here than in most countries.

The money we are using to increase our capacity to generate electricity is being provided by the European Investment Bank and other such bodies and they will naturally ask whether we need this additional capacity at this time, whether we need this additional investment in electricity generation, and whether we have the ability to generate the income from the use of electricity to enable us to repay the debts incurred to build the additional capacity. If average use is no more than 60 per cent of existing capacity to generate electricity there are arguments for at least being careful before committing ourselves to raising capacity even further, possibly widening the gap between use and capacity.

That does not come within the terms of the motion but it is something Deputy O'Malley might think about before he makes this point again, before he makes dogmatic statements on this matter. As a community we must look very carefully at the whole of our public capital programme, and decentralisation of Government offices is part of it. The public capital programme cost, the investment undertaken not by private enterprise but by the Government on behalf of the people, has risen in ten years from about 11 per cent of GNP to about 18 per cent, yet the number of jobs created by that public sector investment has not increased at all.

We need to ask questions about that. It would appear on the face of it that as a community we are not getting the return we deserve from the money the Government are spending, and borrowing, on behalf of the people. It is the people who will repay those borrowing debts. We are not getting the jobs in the volume which we are entitled to expect. We are getting jobs, but not a sufficient number, from the type of investment we have been undertaking at such considerable cost.

It is in that context that I have insisted, in the programme recently published by the Government, on a better way to plan our national finances. I have insisted that we must be critical and careful about all expenditure, particularly capital expenditure, to ensure we will get the return we are entitled to expect from those investments. The record of the past ten years on this matter bears out the points I have made here on many occasions: we do not have sufficient opportunities in the House to debate capital investment. There have not been debates at any time in the House, from the beginning to the end of a year, specifically on our public capital programme.

How can the House be expected to come to rational decisions about whether a particular project will yield the jobs that it should yield for the amount of public money put into it if we do not have an opportunity to debate it? That is why I said at the outset that I very much welcome Deputy Fitzgerald's initiative in putting down this motion, although naturally I do not agree with its condemnation of the Government. However, I agree with the opportunity it provides to debate this issue because we should have a debate here before we undertake an expenditure of £50 million just because a Government on the eve of an election agreed to do it. If we are to be true to our responsibilities we must have this sort of debate much more often than in the past.

The Government now are going the right way about their responsibilities because they are ensuring that this matter will be reviewed properly so that decisions of this sort in the future will be examined thoroughly in this House before the expenditure will be undertaken on behalf of the people.

In the time available I will review quickly the considerations the Government have been bearing in mind in the review they are undertaking. We must look closely at the improvements or otherwise in the efficient administration of the public service. We must look at the impact this would have on balanced regional development. We accept there is a case for the proper type of decentralisation which will make a genuine contribution to sustained regional development. We are giving that factor its due weight in the review we are undertaking. We will also bear in mind the impact this move will have on the construction industry.

We accept there is unemployment in that industry outside Dublin and that a decentralisation programme would help to right that imbalance. However, there is unemployment in the construction industry in Dublin also and we must look at that as well. Above all, we believe the decision in this matter must be taken quickly. We undertook the review in July and I would hope that we will have made a decision on it before Christmas because we should not allow the matter to drag on. We have got to make a clear decision on what we will do, how much and where, with due speed so that people who had built expectations around these proposals will know where they stand.

I accept that the motion is a useful contribution because it gives us an opportunity, before the decision has been made finally, to have a proper debate in the House. We have not been given such opportunities in the past, particularly before the previous Government made the decision to commit £55 million of public money in centres which they had selected for their own purposes without any debate in the House.

Mr. Wilson

It is with a full heart that I recommend that the House reject the decision of the Government not to proceed with programmes already under way in the regions and towns mentioned in our motion. I contend that the thought put into the construction of that programme of Government office decentralisation was one which considered the best possible return for public investment not merely in economic terms, in terms of stimulation of the construction industry, but for the social advance of the regions mentioned.

I will take up a few points made by the Minister for Finance. He was more bland than usual when talking to his amendment. Every time he mentioned money he did so in hushed tones — he was nodding. The golden calf was being duly honoured, but when he mentioned the 3,210 employees with whom we were concerned when we designed this plan there was no such note of awe to be detected in his voice. He avoided what Deputy O'Malley said, that these offices would have to be built anyway and that if they were not built in the regions they would have to be built in Dublin, a much more expensive exercise than the one planned by us.

He went on to say that these decisions were taken without due consideration. He is an innocent man if he thinks that. At many meetings of the Government all the factors were considered and due weight was given to the points made by Deputy Bruton. This very carefully thought out plan for decentralisation emerged from all that consideration. He need not come in here and pretend no due care was taken in formulating the plan. He need not insinuate that the previous Government had any motive other than decentralising Government Departments with the attendant advantages which would come from that decentralisation.

He mentioned that some staff would not be willing to go to the various centres and that there was not sufficient consultation. That again is not so. That is not in accordance with the facts. The various unions were informed of the Government's intention. Every rural Deputy, every Deputy from outside Dublin, has a briefcase full of requests from people in the public service who are anxious to get back as near as possible to their own areas.

He said there was a greater ease of access to Dublin than to a provincial centre. He talked as if the stage coach were the way to get from Cork to Donegal — those were to two counties he mentioned — and as if he were completely unaware of the advances made in this electronic age. The Minister for Finance may not be remembered for his brutal and draconian budget, or for the fact that he sold a pup to the Minister for Education, or that he is mickey-mousing with income tax, or that he was guilty of blatant political patronage in his own Department. If he does not carry through the programme of decentralisation outlined by the previous Government, he will be remembered for that.

There was no real meat in the Minister's objections to our scheme. He mentioned privatisation and problems which arose with regard to it. If he continues with our scheme which is a worthwhile one, and very carefully thought out and very well constructed, and the centres for which were very well placed, he will find that he can impose his own kind of rules on the privatisation scene, and that the State will not lose out in the long run.

He was totally illogical when he came back to the idea of building in Dublin. He said there was unemployment also in the Dublin area. This seems to me to be totally out of keeping with the hushed tones in which he introduced his speech when talking about money and expenditure. He said, which was not true, that capital expenditure is never discussed in this House. For example, the building of schools, whether primary or vocational, aids for the building of secondary schools and the provision of moneys for third level education, have all been discussed in this House. With his holier than thou attitude, arrogating to himself an integrity which he says no-one else ever had, I am not surprised he has come to the conclusion that we should not go ahead with this decentralisation in the manner elaborated and evolved after long consideration by the previous Government.

The Minister admitted it is generally recognised that there are particular virtues in decentralisation in any country and in particular in this country. I will read for the House something said on decentralisation in the recent past. I am quoting from The Irish Times of 23 November 1981:

In the absence of a coherent decentralisation policy, new technologies will serve to reinforce the dominance of Dublin and perpetuate regional disparities, according to the author of a recent National Economic and Social Council report on the problems of growth and decay in the Dublin area.

Dr Michael Bannon, of UCD, said on Thursday that the present highly-centralised Government bureaucracy should be dismantled in favour of strong urban-centred regional units, where public sector decision-making could be relocated. The decentralisation of private companies should also be encouraged.

We heard the statistics given by Deputy O'Malley, when he was introducing this motion, on the great disparity between Dublin and the provinces in that regard. The report goes on:

Addressing an EEC conference on the implications of new technologies, Dr. Bannon said their use would require careful planning if they were to prove socially desirable. He suggested that the capacity of a region to innovate, attract investment and generate self-sustaining growth was hampered by loss of leadership to the Dublin area.

This has been a problem in other countries. As Deputy O'Malley said, with 30 per cent of the population in the Dublin area, the position here was far worse than in other cities such as London and Tokyo. Vienna was always given as an example of the head which was much too big for the body. It was, of course, the capital of the Austro-Hungarian empire and a huge structure was left there when that empire was dissolved. It was a grave and heavy drain on the people of Austria. The balance has been established since then, and it is precisely that kind of balance that the Fianna Fáil Government were trying to establish in putting forward their plan for decentralisation.

It is true, as was said by Deputy O'Malley and admitted at least by implication by the Minister, that many civil servants are trying to get back down as near as possible to their own regions. We consulted the unions. We told them what we were about to do. We said full consultation would take place on the move to the various areas from Departments.

The fact that young people and middle-aged people are anxious to go back is, in a sense, a tribute to the development of amenities in rural Ireland. Some 30 or 40 years ago it would have been difficult, even with gelignite, to blast these people out of the capital city. There have been considerable amenity developments in rural Ireland and, for the quality of life and because they know the social structures in their own areas, people are anxious to get back to them.

It is very important to realise what this injection of human resources into a provincial town means to that town. In the recent past in the case of hospitals we have been able to attract — and I hope the Minister does not lay his cold and clammy hands on the development of the general hospital in Cavan, which would also inhibit development in that area — highly qualified medical personnel. We have examples of highly qualified medical personnel who have had experience in Britain, the United States and other places coming to our local hospitals and this means a great deal, not merely from the point of view of their medical skills but also the social development of the area. When civil servants come to the various towns, they will be in a position to apply their considerable sophistication to the development of the specific area to which they are allocated.

I want to make a plea for my own area. I know all the areas mentioned, Letterkenny, Sligo, Ballina or Cavan, have their own needs for development, but we exemplify what has happened in provincial towns. Deputy O'Malley mentioned that a very high percentage of personnel was concentrated in the city. In Cavan there is no Industrial Development Authority office. We do not have the North Eastern Regional Development Organisation offices; there are no Army headquarters, and even the income tax offices are far away from the town. Some people think it is not far enough and if this Government continue in office they would probably wish they were even further away. We were cut off when the railway system was discontinued. The North Eastern Health Board, who cater for the health needs of the area, are located elsewhere. All these points were made when the Government were considering various areas for the location of offices and, contrary to what the Minister of Finance, Deputy Bruton, said, very careful consideration was given to the claims of various towns. There was a very long and serious debate and all the relevant factors were taken into account. It was not an off-the-cuff decision. It resulted from serious consideration and study of the whole matter. The last thing that the Minister for Finance said before he left the House was that he was the one who had responsibility, and that he was exercising this responsibility with regard to capital development. The implication was that nobody else had done this. I repudiate that. It is not true.

Deputy O'Malley outlined the genesis of the plan of the previous Government. The then Taoiseach mentioned it at the Árd Fheis on 16 February 1980. The then Minister of Finance, Deputy Gene Fitzgerald, made his announcement on 22 October 1980 and listed the various centres and the number of personnel, 3,210. Of that, the Department of Agriculture was to decentralise to the extent of 150 officers to Cavan town which would mean the building of offices to cater for that 150 plus other officials from the Department of Agriculture who were already there, bringing the total number to 230. We had a visit from Deputy Seán Calleary, who had special responsibility in that field, on 14 March. The county council, conscious of the need for development of the town, which in the 1979 census showed a population of 6,300 or so, immediately made a prestigious site available for this office on Farnham Street — Casement Street. Plans had progressed to such an extent before we left office that tenders had been invited for site development. At Question Time I asked the Minister for Finance what had happened to those tenders and to employers who are waiting for some word from the Government. He had no answer for me then and I did not get any answer since.

The construction industry which had been mentioned both by Deputy O'Malley and the Minister for Finance, Deputy Bruton, is in a parlous state at present, despite the fact that the outgoing Government consciously decided to enlarge the capital programme deliberately to sustain employment and to provide infrastructure which will be needed when the international recession is over and we can make an advance as we did in 1977, 1978 and 1979. Despite the fact that the Government decided on a large and substantial programme, the building industry is in trouble and the Government are compounding the difficulties by their shilly-shallying. I could not make out from the Minister for Finance whether he is going to scrap the whole scheme or not. He was bland to start off with and confused at the finish. We would like clarification of the position.

We were to have a section of the Department of Agriculture located in Cavan. Certain facilities were to be provided, facilities which are easily located and will not in any way produce the difficulty that Deputy Bruton was talking about with regard to access. We want to tell the committee who are supposed to be examining this since last July that if they are worried — Deputy Bruton said they were worried — about staffing, they are coming to a town which has particular strengths, as have Ballina, Letterkenny and Sligo. We have our own strengths from a social point of view. We are strong in drama. We have two drama festivals each year. We have a strong centre of the arts, we have an arts officer who, with the aid of Cavan Urban Council and Cavan County Council and grants from the Central Arts Council, An Chomairle Ealaíon, have developed the arts in the town to which the civil servants will be going. We have a very strong sporting and games tradition.

Minister of State at the Department of Finance (Mr. B. Desmond)

The Deputy forgot his Latin scholarship.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Minister of State should not interrupt.

Mr. Wilson

I do not understand Deputy Desmond's point. Deputy O'Malley referred to serious gaps in industrial development. He said that Arigna had been chosen for development for the generation of electricity and that this scheme had been scrapped. He also mentioned Ballyforan, which is very serious for Galway. We in County Cavan are perturbed by rumours — and I was in consultation with the local officer of the ITGWU — that one of our factories is in serious trouble, which may mean the loss of over 100 jobs. Since the Government took office one hammer blow after another has been directed at our area. There are people who still cannot believe that the Government would even contemplate scrapping the location of the Department of Agriculture office in Cavan town. I can assure the Minister for Finance and his ADC, Deputy Desmond, that if they renege on the previous Government's commitment to this development there will be a very hot reception awaiting them when they come for the by-election, whenever we can reluctantly drag them before the people.

It is very difficult to maintain morale in a community which is geared to development in a certain way, and we are crying out for development in that area. We have been cut off for some considerable time. Belfast was our commercial and industrial capital up to the time the country was artifically divided. The Great Northern Railway and the Midland Great Western met at Cavan town. The division of the country and the deterioration of the railway service meant we were cut off from Belfast, both politically and commercially, and we had very poor communication with Dublin. Our local authority is developing a good road system which will be able to cater for the extra traffic which will be generated when the Government review one of many reviews.

Debate adjourned.

The Dáil adjourned at 8.30 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Wednesday, 2 December 1981.