Vol. 351 No. 5
I move:
That a sum not exceeding £11,376,000 be granted to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of December 1984, for rates and contributions in lieu of rates, etc., in respect of Government property, and for contributions towards rates on premises occupied by Representatives of External Governments.
I have some general comments on this. Most Government property, obviously, is located in and around the city. It is for that reason that I have to make the point that the Government's decision to cancel the decentralisation programme which would have relocated many of the Government offices throughout the country is regrettable. The rates to be paid on the proper will be higher in the city than elsewhere. Decentralisation, in the fullest sense the word, is more than decentralisation of buildings. It is decentralisation of the function of Government, into which shall not go now.
There may have been, as the Government indicated, a saving of £45 million but that has been a very short term saving, indeed. Cancelling the programe decided on by the previous Government even when I was in Government myself, in the long term will cost the State considerably more. We are dealing with city which is conjested and cannot cope with the consequences of that. In terms of those working in the public service, are dealing with a cost of living which considerably higher than the normal one elsewhere in the country.
I ask the Minister if possible to review this decision. I noted with particular regret recently that the Government has decided to dispose of the properties that were acquired because of devaluat decisions of the predecessor Government, those which are now surplus requirements as, for example, in Killarney and elsewhere. Some of these would already have been in the hands of Office of Public Works and some were acquired for the purposes of the development of the decentralisat programme.
I ask the Minister to keep an open mind. That these properties are being disposed of will mean, regrettably, that when a Government that are committed to decentralisation propose to re-launch the programme — and we certainly shall do in Government — there will be greater delay in doing so because properties acquired for that purpose are now being disposed of. Could the Minister reconsider that? I accept that these decisions not taken just for the sake of being popular and the Government must believe them to be right. The decision would have been different in our case. The million may be saved over a three year span but will cost much more in the long term apart altogether from the benefit of bringing the Government to the people, which is probably more important. We have discussed the Revenue Commissioners, a very considerable number of whom were to be relocated in the Limerick, Shannon, Ennis and Nenagh areas. That is just an example. This would have been a major boost to the economy and would have been evidence of the effective way to decentralise Government. While the decision has been taken, would the Minister assure us that, if there is a possibility of reconsidering, he propose that the Government give that reconsideration? In the meantime, I ask him to discourage the disposal of further properties acquired by their predecessors in Government, which would minimise delays when another Government would want to implement decentralisation.
I appreciate the Deputy's concern about this matter. We took the decision about the decentralisation proposal after very careful consideration. In fact, if I recollect properly, we had a discussion on the matter either on the Adjournment a few months ago, or on another occasion. I then set out my position very clearly. I do not see that there would have been any substantial net gain from the decentralisation programme.
In the long term, yes.
As I said on that occasion, there was no concrete evidence to the effect that some of the proposals for financing the premises to be provided from private sector or quasi-private sector funds would have been less expensive than the classical way of providing these buildings. The evidence was that these privatisation proposals, as they were called at the time, would have been more expensive to the taxpayer at the end of the day.
I would not say that this, or indeed any other issue, must be ruled out forever and for aye, but would not anticipate that in the foreseeable future I would find compelling reasons for changing my mind on this. In those circumstances, regarding the second portion of what the Deputy has said about the disposal of properties, I would not be justified in taking the line that we should hold on to these vacant properties just against the day when another Government — and that will be a long time in the future — may make up their mind to go ahead.
The Government could always lease them.
We could always lease them, that is true. However, it would be better for the Government to dispose of them. I should think that Deputy O'Kennedy would agree that there are not many around these days who could be talked into taking a 35 year lease. It is a pity there were some around in recent years. In view of what the Deputy said when we were speaking earlier on a Vote in relation to public buildings, I would not be justified in saying that we should hold these properties against the day, some time in the future, when somebody might make up his mind to go ahead and decentralise.
On a point of order, with very considerable regret I have to tell the Ceann Comhairle that the rulings of the Chair this morning I have found to be totally unacceptable and inconsistent.
That cannot be raised at this time.
The record will show that the Chair allowed discussion——
No, the Deputy cannot raise this matter now.
I want to make my point.
My colleague, Deputy Brennan, was ruled out of order by the Chair when I was speaking. The record will show.
The Deputy cannot question the Chair's rulings in this way.
The Deputy can do what he now proposes to do, bring this before the Committee on Procedure and Privileges and have the inconsistent rulings of the Chair raised.
There is a way of bringing it before the Committee on Procedure and Privileges and this is not the way.
I feel I owe it to the House to raise it——
The Deputy is out of order and he will resume his seat.
If the Chair made rulings this morning they were not consistent rulings. I am pleased to note that somebody else who occupied the Chair allowed positions to be debated on a much wider basis than I was allowed to do.
The Deputy is out of order and he will resume his seat.
The Dáil adjourned at 1.40 p.m. until 2.30 p.m. on Tuesday, 12 May 1984.
