Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 19 Feb 2002

Vol. 548 No. 5

Other Questions. - Decentralisation Programme.

Willie Penrose

Question:

45 Mr. Penrose asked the Minister for Finance the number of staff who have been transferred to date arising from the Government's announcement of a major programme for decentralisation of up to 10,000 civil and public servants; if the Government plans to accelerate the programme of decentralisation having regard to new projections from the Central Statistics Office indicating a huge growth in the population of the greater Dublin area; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [5566/02]

Mr. McCreevy:

The development of plans for a new programme of decentralisation involves a very considerable amount of work. To date, consultations have taken place with Civil Service management as well as with the public service unions. My Department has also received submissions, representations and inquiries from or on behalf of over 100 urban centres throughout the country. The results of these consultations as well as the submissions, etc, will help to inform the Government's decision in relation to the new programme. I have consistently said that decisions will be taken only after appropriate deliberation and I am not prepared to move from that position.

A new and significant programme of decentralisation will have implications not only for the people involved, but also for the way in which our public administration operates. I am concerned to ensure that at no time is the efficient delivery of public services compromised. In the meantime, I am continuing to consider all the implications of a significant new programme of decentralisation and given the importance and complexity of many of the issues involved as well my commitment that decisions should be taken only after appropriate deliberation, I am not prepared at this time to commit myself definitively to a time by when such decisions should be taken.

Mr. McDowell:

It is interesting to reflect on the Minister's responses to this question whenever it has arisen since he first initiated the policy two years ago. In the first six months or so he told us how incredibly urgent it was to get responses from colleagues and take decisions. He then marked time for about a year. For the past six months he has been telling us he is determined not to rush the process. Is it not time to face the music and tell us this is not going to happen?

Mr. McCreevy:

I would like to have completed the process of decentralisation long before now, but it sparked off such interest among Deputies, county councillors, town councillors and branch secretaries everywhere in Ireland that I have been snowed under with applications. Every Deputy in this House has put questions to me on this matter at various times. Also there has been considerable interest from the trade unions representing their members and from the management of the various Departments. I would like to have moved with considerably more speed than has proved possible. However, it is better to get the decision right than half-baked. There are well over 100 interesting and very well worked out submissions from various towns and centres throughout the country. It has, therefore, taken more time than I would have wished.

Mr. McDowell:

Let me ask the question again, because the Minister did not respond to it. Let me, perhaps, make it a little easier for him. Is there the remotest chance of this process being initiated in a serious way before the dissolution of the Dáil?

Mr. McCreevy:

It is not possible for me to say "yes" or "no" to that question.

Mr. Bradford:

It is not credible for the Minister to say he was surprised by the level of interest in this programme of decentralisation. What went wrong? The Minister gave a firm commitment two years ago that the programme would be up and running by now. Was there a veto by the Tánaiste, who put it on the record that she did not want this programme to be turned into a Fianna Fáil election gimmick? Is that what scuppered the plans? Something must have gone wrong because the Minister gave the firmest commitment to this House, to individual Deputies and to groups across the country over two years ago that the programme would be up and running by now. I appreciate that the applications must be processed, but what went wrong? Did the Minister not have any idea of how the applications could be assessed?

Mr. Barrett:

Does the Minister agree that decentralisation should go hand in hand with a proper well thought out spatial plan? Does he agree that dealing with decentralisation on the basis of stroke politics, depending on which Minister is resident in what constituency, is no way to handle human beings who have dedicated their lives to the public service? Does he agree that, without a proper spatial plan that recognises future development centres, it is codology to pretend there is decentralisation when it is really a question of shifting people to prop up a weak Deputy or Minister in a constituency?

Mr. McCreevy:

I will take account of the national spatial strategy, which is in the course of preparation and will be published shortly. If I were to engage in what the Deputy terms stroke politics, I would have dealt with the matter in the way alluded to by Deputy Bradford, which has been, I must confess, the history of decentralisation. I have often referred to the compelling case made for County Wexford to have decentralisation to two places during the term of office of the last Government. That, of course, had nothing to with the fact that Deputies Yates and Howlin were Government Ministers at the time. I am sure there was no connection, but other people might not think that.

What I did commit to was that there should not be a definitive list of criteria against which applications would be measured and if they did not meet those criteria they would be excluded. I was not prepared to rule any centre in or, more importantly, out. I gave a commitment to this House that I would not engage in stroke politics in this area because it involves people's lives and careers, and considerable benefit to the locations involved.

There are many reasons for decentralisation which relate to the social partners, the locations and good planning. For those reasons I have time to deliberate. If Deputy McDowell amends the Constitution to allow me total powers in deciding everything, I might be able to do what he wants. There are many aspects to be taken into account.