I wish to share my time with Deputy Sexton, the Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs, Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív, and Deputies Moloney, Kelleher, Callanan and Michael Moynihan.
Private Members' Business. - Decentralisation Programme: Motion (Resumed).
The following motion was moved by Deputy Connaughton on Tuesday, 13 May 2003:
That Dáil Éireann condemns the Government for:
–its failure to fulfil its plans to decentralise 10,000 civil servants announced in 1999 from Dublin; and
–its failure to develop a comprehensive plan to decentralise Government Departments in a manner which is consistent, and achieves coherence, with the national development plan, the national spatial strategy and sectoral plans such as the strategic rail review;
–notes that these failures are symptomatic of a general failure by this Government to deliver joined up Government which effectively delivers strategies which will provide urgent relief to the daily level of chronic congestion suffered in Dublin and which will promote balanced regional development; and
–calls on the Government to outline:
–its strategy on the decentralisation of Government Departments;
–the criteria on which decisions on decentralisation will be based;
–how it will ensure that these criteria are fair and open and immune from politically driven opportunism;
–to what extent the cities and towns named as gateway and hub towns in the national spatial strategy plan will be given priority in any new decentralisation plan; and
–a specific timeframe for the implementation of its decentralisation proposals.
Debate resumed on amendment No. 1:
To delete all words after "Dáil Éireann" and substitute the following:
"commends the Government for its careful consideration of the many and varied factors which it must examine in order to fulfil the commitment in An Agreed Programme for Government to move forward the progressive decentralisation of Government offices and agencies, taking account of the national spatial strategy."
–(Minister for Defence).
Acting Chairman
Is that agreed? Agreed.
I want to begin tonight by reiterating the Government's commitment to a new programme of decentralisation, as outlined in An Agreed Programme for Government, in which we said that we would progressively decentralise Government offices and agencies, taking account of the national spatial strategy.
Unfortunately, I missed last night's debate but I hope that anyone reflecting on the various contributions made will now appreciate the demands on the Minister for Finance as speaker after speaker made such eloquent cases for the inclusion in a new programme of decentralisation of towns right across the country. By my calcu lations the case was advanced, in only one and half hours last night, for the inclusion of towns in nine counties.
Most of them came from the Minister's benches.
The citizens of Ireland should be thankful that they have public representatives capable of advancing such convincing arguments on their behalf.
Decentralisation is an important business for several reasons, not least because we are talking about the lives, careers and futures of real people and their families. It is also about maximising the efficient delivery of public services for the benefit of every citizen in the State and at a time when so much focus is placed on value for money. I will not be rushed by political pressure into taking decisions prematurely which will compromise the delivery of services to the citizens of this State. No one is more conscious than I am of the interest which decentralisation has generated both within and outside the House. We are all aware of the frequency with which the issue is raised in parliamentary questions or Adjournment debates and the coverage the issue receives in the media, particularly the provincial newspapers, is evidence of its significance throughout every part of this country.
In this regard, I want to deal briefly with some, however occasional, media coverage suggesting that a number of decisions in relation to the forthcoming programme have been taken. I want to be very clear about this. No such decisions have yet been taken. Indeed, only within the past couple of weeks it was reported that one particular Government agency might be relocating to one of two midland counties.
While I have no idea what the basis was for such a story, such speculation is unhelpful and unfair both to those working in such organisations and to the areas referred to in such reports. I want to assure the House that this report and others have no basis in fact.
Conscious, as I am, of the considerable anticipation which the subject has generated throughout the country, I consider it prudent to express a word of caution. Although not wanting to dampen the anticipation of any town or community, it is important to take a reality check at this point. Well over 100 urban centres throughout every county in the country have expressed a desire to be included in a new programme of decentralisation, through the presentation of submissions or through representations made on their behalf. An effective, efficient programme of decentralisation simply cannot accommodate anything like the number of centres from which submissions etc. have been received or on whose behalf representations have been made. The obvious, however unfortunate, conclusion is that a multiple of the number of those centres which can be included will have to be disappointed. While it is not that I take any pleasure in raining on anyone's parade, it is important that some sense of perspective should be brought to this debate. Notwithstanding this cautionary message, I am determined that we will deliver an ambitious, successful and significant programme of decentralisation and I am confident also that there is sufficient interest among Dublin-based civil servants in relocating to ensure its successful delivery.
As much as I know that there is considerable interest in decentralisation, it is impossible to measure the extent of such interest. So it was with some bemusement that I read the Fine Gael statement on Monday which appeared to suggest that over 80% of Dublin-based civil servants had applied for transfers to provincial locations. Notwithstanding the undoubted attractions of Mayo and Galway, I am sure that neither Deputy Kenny nor Deputy Connaughton would seriously contend that only 20% of Dublin-based civil servants want to stay in the capital. The Fine Gael statement went on to suggest that there were more applications for relocation from the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform than there are staff in the Department – quite an extraordinary achievement. I am left wondering whether the Fine Gael statement is a reflection of innocent misinterpretation or deliberate mischief.
It was a Dáil question.
Let me explain to the Fine Gael Party and to the House how these figures are compiled. When a civil servant is interested in transferring to a particular location it is normal that they would apply to any Government office in that location. For example, a person interested in transferring to Cork could apply to the Departments of Agriculture and Food, Social and Family Affairs, Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Foreign Affairs, the Office of the Revenue Commissioners, the Director of Consumer Affairs as well as the Garda Síochána and the Central Statistics Office. Furthermore, they are likely to apply to transfer to one or more neighbouring towns.
The effect of this is that one person interested in transferring to Cork may be responsible for as many as ten or 12 of the applications referred to in the Fine Gael statement. The figures referred to in their statement must therefore be significantly discounted before they can be taken as any reasonable barometer of interest among Dublin-based civil servants in relocating to the provinces.
The figures on which the Fine Gael statement is based necessarily reflect the existing spread of decentralised or locally-based offices and take no account of new locations which may be included in a new programme of decentralisation. For these reasons they cannot be taken as a clear indicator of interest in participation in a new programme of decentralisation and to continue to insist that they do is, to say the least, disingenuous, if not deliberately misleading.
The Fine Gael motion calls on the Government to outline the criteria on which decisions in relation to the new programme of decentralisation will be based. I have said before that there are so many imponderable and immeasurable factors which will impact on the decisions that it is not as simple as listing off qualifying criteria against which the merits of various towns can be measured. Decisions will be taken with a view to putting in place a substantial programme which will maximise the number of public servants relocating voluntarily without impacting adversely on the efficient delivery of public services. Indeed, it is my earnest hope that a new programme of decentralisation could result in an improvement in the efficiency with which the State delivers its services.
This new programme of decentralisation will be announced and implemented against the background of the new social partnership agreement, Sustaining Progress, which provides for a flexible approach to working practices by individual public servants, management and unions in meeting the demand for improvements in the provision of public services. I take the view that the new start which decentralisation presents for so many can be availed of to move the modernisation agenda forward to achieve a public service which is quality, performance and results driven; achieves value for money; is focused on the needs of its customers; is accountable; responds flexibly and rapidly to change; and promotes equal opportunities.
Much as it pains me to disappoint the Opposition, I must regrettably do so again this evening. I will not be drawn on a timescale for the implementation of the new programme. The timescale for implementation depends on a wide range of factors including the scale of the programme, the number and variety of locations to be included, the availability of suitable accommodation etc. Furthermore, there is the issue to which I keep returning – the efficient delivery of public services.
Sourcing staff for a particular Department or office transferring to a provincial location means, in almost all cases, staff transferring into and out of that Department office from several others throughout the Civil Service. Implementing a programme which involves the relocation of elements of several Departments, offices or agencies multiplies the extent of the interdepartmental transfer of staff. It is naturally the case that this kind of interdepartmental transfer of staff can be very disruptive and my concern is obviously to minimise that level of disruption. Minimising the disruption necessarily means that the implementation of a substantial programme of decentralisation should be rolled out on a progressive and systematic basis over a reasonable period.
As to when decisions will be taken, the answer is when the Government is ready. We have consulted widely and there is a considerable amount of advice, experience and information available to us. My Department has also been inundated with submissions, many of a very high standard, offering convincing arguments as to why particular towns ought to be included in the new programme. All of these have been reviewed and full account will be taken of them as part of the decision-making process.
In conclusion, I was somewhat amused by the suggestion that the decisions in relation to the new programme will be politically driven.
They will.
I presume the Opposition means that the decisions should be taken on the basis of criteria other than those used to decide that sections of the Department of Agriculture and Food and the Environmental Protection Agency should transfer to Johnstown Castle, County Wexford. Interestingly, those decisions were taken at a time when the two responsible Cabinet Ministers were from County Wexford. I commend the Government's amendment to the House.
Nobody is going anywhere on this occasion.
Decentralisation makes sense. There are sound policy and efficiency arguments in its favour and, correctly carried out, decentralisation will make a contribution to the better government of this country. If it is incorrectly carried out, it could bring politics into disrepute and lower even further the public esteem in which politicians are held. The idea of Ministers shifting 20 or 30 civil servants to their constituencies is well past its sell by date. That approach did the Civil Service and provincial Ireland little good and it certainly did the Ministers concerned little good. The electorate is too sophisticated to be swayed by that type of stroke. There is no water left in the political parish pump.
We need a real, substantial and coherent programme of decentralisation, properly planned and carefully executed. It should make sense in both administrative and economic terms. There is a compelling case for decentralisation. It would take the pressure off Dublin by reducing congestion and, in particular, by reducing pressure on the housing market. Decentralisation promotes balanced regional development. The regions must build critical mass in the provincial towns so they can develop into regional centres.
Many civil and public servants would welcome the opportunity to work outside Dublin and enjoy a different quality of life. Decentralisation can help to improve efficiency in the public service. In the age of the Internet there is no compelling reason that the bulk of Ireland's administrative public sector must be concentrated in Dublin.
This is a major public policy initiative and it should be treated as such. We should press on and implement a major decentralisation programme now. I support such a programme, as does the Government and my party, but it is important that we do it correctly. We should be ambitious in scale. Major chunks of Government activity should be shifted en bloc out of Dublin and into the provincial centres. There is no reason that whole divisions of Departments and, indeed, Departments should not be moved.
We should also promote the idea of clusters. Early efforts at decentralisation were less than successful because of the negative impact they had on the careers of the civil servants. Promotional opportunities must be maximised for the people involved. We must create a network of interlocking regional clusters. No civil or public servant should be isolated in career terms or cut off from the mainstream. A civil servant in Waterford should, for example, be able to pursue promotional opportunities in Wexford. A civil servant in Longford should be able to pursue a promotional opportunity in Athlone or Roscommon.
It is also important to identify the most suitable towns as centres for decentralisation. Every Deputy will push hard on behalf of his or her constituency and I will make the case for Longford and Roscommon. However, we know in our hearts that not every town in Ireland is suitable. One simply cannot place a Department in the middle of a country crossroads and expect it to work. There must be a checklist. Will there be suitable office accommodation available? Are there sites available? Is there adequate, affordable public housing? Are the public services and facilities able to cope with the large influx of residents? Are there good links to the capital?
It is important to choose the right locations, even within the towns that are selected, to make this work. We also need to choose the right buildings. Public offices should be prestigious buildings. They should make a statement about our country and our culture, be examples of architectural excellence and they should occupy central positions in our urban streetscapes.
County Longford experienced a small but significant increase in population according to last year's census. There is a budding confidence in the county. Disappointment over the postponement of the Cardinal Health project has given way to satisfaction with the recent announcement of the Abbott investment. The confidence of the county would receive a significant boost if it was to gain from decentralisation.
Longford is like many places in the midlands, west and north-west. Whether it is Longford or Roscommon, Mayo or Leitrim, Sligo or Donegal, all stand to benefit significantly from the impetus that can be provided by decentralisation. All stand to gain from the influx of new blood and to benefit from the new investment. It is time to start the process of shifting Government activity out of Dublin and into the regions. Decentralisation will be good not just for the country but also for the capital city. It is time to get it started.
Cuireann sé áthas orm deis a bheith agam labhairt ar an ábhar fíor thábhachtach seo. Unfortunately, my time is limited but I wish to address a few issues. I do not agree with the popular theory that Government should hand control of all decisions to people who are not elected. It is vital that with this most important issue the Government is at the heart of the decision-making process. I agree with Deputy Sexton that it should not be a question of looking after one's bailiwick. However, left to itself, the system will always take the conservative option. It will always give the reason things cannot be done rather than how they can be done. We need decentralisation and the Government has a clear policy on it.
Deputy Connaughton said during this debate that I had stressed the importance of Dublin people understanding the need for development of the regions. He seemed to think this was a negative factor. We should have learned, in trying to solve the difficulties in Northern Ireland, that the best way of trying to solve a problem is to achieve a win-win situation for everybody.
We did not get it yet.
I said in Claremorris, and I stand by what I said, that it will be much easier to get movement on this issue if we persuade the people of this city of the merits of the move. I come from this city and I have seen the city strangulated and destroyed by over-growth at the expense of the rest of the country. Many people in Dublin would agree that it is as much in their interest as it is in the interest of the people of the less developed parts of the country that we achieve more evenly spread development. Given the realities and pressures of political life, it makes sense that if the people of Dublin were proactively in favour of such a policy and the development of the regions as not only solving the problems of the regions but also helping to solve their problems, it would be easier to implement these policies.
One can bring a horse to water but one cannot make the horse drink. Deputy Connaughton served in a Fine Gael Government and he knows, as does everybody who has served in Government, that if people want to put a dris chosáin i do bhealach or to make things difficult, they can slow the political will down considerably. However, if there is national agreement across the board, and I believe we can secure a consensus that this is desirable and that investment must be made in the regions to bring it about, we will reach our agreed goal much faster.
Decentralisation must be done in the context of the spatial requirements of the country. It should not involve moving to areas that are already growing rapidly, such as the gateway cities. Those areas are now at a point where they are self starting and self growing. In fact, most of the problems of those cities relate to the time lag in providing the social and physical infrastructure to meet the needs of the growing populations. Decentralisation should kick-start areas that have been in decline or have been stagnant but that has to be done in a coherent way. I have already spoken to the Western Development Commission regarding this issue and the physical planning of counties in which it is involved, for example, the potential of opening the railway lines that exist, some of which are closed. Coherent decentralisation would have a much greater chance of success and social organisation than decentralisation carried out willy nilly without matching the very good infrastructure available in some places. In other places a very good potential infrastructure could be provided at quite modest cost and that would be worth developing if it was obvious that it was going to be a social and economic development with decentralisation to match. We also have to look at a number of other complex issues. We have to be realistic in making sure that when we decentralise we do so with regard to critical mass in terms of career structures, particularly in relation to Government Departments.
There are many issues that have to be taken on board. All I can say is that the commitment to decentralisation is there. It will take careful planning and should be done in a focused way. It should go to areas that need it. Finally, it can be done only in an industrial relations atmosphere that is desirous and willing for it to happen. Persuasion will be needed and that comes from good planning, not a heavy hand and diktat. Obstacles will arise if we try to do it by a short cut.
I welcome the Government's commitment to decentralisation, coupled with its spatial strategy programme. I support all that was said by Deputy Sexton a few minutes ago. Decentralisation should not be effected by virtue of the level of political pressure placed on the Minister but rather it should ensure that it reaches areas that can quite properly support it. It is also very important for the Minister to take into account counties and towns that have not in recent years secured the value of State sponsored jobs, by way of IDA investment or whatever else, provided those towns could support a decentralisation programme.
The Minister referred to press statements regarding two counties in the midlands, which I presume are Laois and Offaly. I am quite dismayed that the Minister also says it is unfair to the towns and the organisations involved. I hope he will not be put off thinking about Laois and Offaly, even though unfortunately commitments have been made, and if one were to read the local papers one would presume that the Minister for Finance has no say whatever in the final package of decentralisation. I am glad to note this evening that it is this Minister who will have the final decision.
I would say there is a bit of a row going on between them.
There is no row. I thought I had lost part of the picture for the last few weeks. I am happy to hear the Minister confirming that he will be in charge.
When the Minister comes to decide on the programme I am certain he will look at the opportunities that can be delivered from a county such as Laois, which is centrally located and over the years has not been favoured by State jobs. This is an ideal opportunity for the county. Rather than be parochial, I know it also has to match the criterion that it can support decentralisation, for reasons other than political ones, and that should be taken into account so it can be put in the fast track.
Decentralisation has many advantages, not just for the counties that we support. A decentralisation programme can relocate Government offices outside the city, reducing the difficulties caused by gridlock and the huge problems caused by the demands for housing in the cities, and ensure that we have a properly located service not just in the cities but throughout the regions.
I welcome the fact that the Government is committed to this programme. I see tremendous advantages from it.
I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate in the few minutes that I have. Decentralisation has been bandied around for several years and I am delighted the Minister has come into the House and has given a commitment that it is going ahead. As a State and a Government, we cannot direct foreign industrialists on where to locate but in relation to decentralisation we can consider suitable areas. I welcome what the Minister has said about areas that have not benefited considerably from the boom over recent years. There is no point in putting the decentralisation programme into centres that are already growing at a rapid pace. We need to look after the areas that have not got a lift from the recent economic recovery.
There are several reasons why decentralisation makes economic sense in relation to the enormous growth of Dublin and other cities and the cost of living in the major urban centres, particularly in Dublin, including the cost of housing and of providing an infrastructure. There are plenty of provincial towns that have modern communications and that can provide a service as good as any that can be provided in Dublin. There is no reason why Departments cannot function as effectively and efficiently in Kanturk as in Dublin.
There are enormous benefits to living in provincial towns. There is a very strong sense of community there and a rural beauty, with favourable house prices to attract people and a long list of other advantages. Over the years we have built up the infrastructure with excellent schools and leisure facilities that would entice people. I gather from civil servants working in Dublin that they are fully informed and looking forward to the opportunity to move out of the city.
Finally, I ask the Ministers when they are making their adjudication to ensure the decentralisation programme benefits towns which have not benefited considerably from the economic boom.
I compliment the Minister and the Government on making decentralisation part of the programme for Government. Decentralisation is the best possible way of putting life back into rural areas. Moving Departments from Dublin, which is choked with traffic, to towns in the country shows that this Government is serious about rural areas. Towns such as Ballinasloe, Loughrea and Tuam in east Galway are well placed for Departments. Ballinasloe, where my home is, was discussed last night and is a great location for any Department. It has suffered from the closure of the AT Cross and Square D factories. It has a lot to offer: it is on the N6 Dublin-Galway route, close to Athlone and about an hour from Galway. It is a lovely place in which to live, a friendly town which will have a new leisure centre in a couple of months, a new marina, new secondary school and Garbally College which is well known, a new health centre and an excellent hospital in Portiuncula, which is also well known, and great hotels. It has many sports facilities and cheap houses which are half the price of those in Dublin. Therefore, I encourage the Minister to consider Ballinasloe for decentralisation.
Industry must also move to the towns and if this happens people, especially farmers' families, can continue to live and work in rural areas and will not have to drive long distances in heavy traffic to work. Decentralisation is a first step by Government to make sure that rural Ireland survives. I ask the Minister to consider moving to the towns, especially Ballinasloe which is in dire need of a boost at the moment.
I wish to share time with Deputies Ó Caoláin, McHugh, Breen, Cowley and Harkin.
There is not and has never been a policy of decentralisation in this country. Decentralisation relates to decision making. What has been promised, initiated to a small extent, and stalled by this Government is an office relocation programme. That has many benefits for those who are currently living in Dublin and wish to live elsewhere, and health benefits for the communities which have been promised that they will be locations for many of those sections of Departments and agencies. Real decentralisation, however, is about where and how decisions are made and who makes them. For people in Cork, the apparatus of many Departments and state agencies remains centralised. It matters not to a person in Cork if decisions are made nationally in Sligo, Longford or Athlone, for the Departments are still centralised. Having said that, the Government has been engaged in an exercise of deceit that coincided with the run-up to the general election and has persisted since then in an effort to win votes both from those many thousands of civil servants who want to leave the Dublin area and move back to local communities and from those local communities themselves that saw the opportunity of an economic fillip. On both those grounds, the Government deserves condemnation, and this Private Members' motion deserves support.
The other element of what is being suggested here, and what the Government is being challenged on, is that, on the national spatial strategy, it is pursuing a policy of nonsense. It cannot pretend to be distributing infrastructure nationally that would allow the free flow of economic activity – of people travelling to places of work, education and general amenity – if the reality of its capital expenditure, such as it is, is still largely centred on the unmitigated growth of the Dublin region.
The national roads programme, with its colossal over expenditure has now been reduced, for this and coming years, to a national roads programme for roads in, out and around Dublin – no further than 25 miles away. The Government can identify no national roads project that shows the potential of putting in place badly needed infrastructure on the western seaboard and between large centres of population in the rest of the country – Cork, Limerick, Waterford and Sligo and down to Cork.
The railway programme, such as it is, is nothing but a load of unfulfilled promises. The Government has published two programmes in recent weeks, the strategic rail review and a specific rail review of suburban rail transport in Cork. Neither gives commitments to the provision of an alternative public transport system, and many of the recommendations in both reports pour cold water on and defeat the hope of many in regions outside Dublin of seeing adequate infrastructure put in place.
A further example of the Government doing exactly the opposite of what it claims regarding reducing population growth in Dublin and properly distributing it throughout the rest of the country is the infrastructure surrounding Dublin Airport, where even more growth is being asked for in the shape of additional terminals and runway space. How does that square with the idea of having many population centres of importance in economic development and cultural life, something for which the Minister has some degree of responsibility in his Department?
We are living in an "unreality" where decentralisation is talked about without being defined in any proper sense. The Government, mainly under the lead of the Taoiseach, who is a master of using words that mean nothing and ultimately deliver nothing, has seen to it that we have many people living outside the Dublin region experiencing zero growth in infrastructure and many tens of thousands of people stuck in the morass of Dublin City life who would rather be living, working and otherwise engaging in a more sustainable life which the Government, through its policies, lack of initiative and basic deceit, is not allowing them.
The promise of decentralisation from this Government has become the modern equivalent of the once infamous promise to drain the Shannon. In his contribution to the debate last night, Deputy Michael Smith, the Minister for Defence, tried to refute the argument that the Government had failed to deliver on its commitments. He said:
This is the first of a five year term and I challenge those on the other side of the House to sustain their arguments at the conclusion of our full term.
I could hardly believe my eyes when I read that. I have pursued this matter closely since first being elected in 1997, and I know this Government's record extremely well – just as well as the Minister or any of his colleagues. One would think from Minister Smith's comment that this was a Government of new members, with new Ministers wet behind the ears, rather than an Administration full of veterans such as Minister Smith himself. Of course, Minister Browne is an exception. He is very welcome.
Thank you.
The Government's promise of a massive decentralisation programme does not go back to the Agreed Programme for Government in June 2002 but to the last millennium, as we all know very well. I have carried out some research on the matter, and the Minister for Finance first made the commitment in his Budget Statement in December 1999, and it was quite clear that Minister McCreevy said that the next round of decentralisation would be "more radical than those to date". God bless the mark. He stated the Government's intention to transfer the maximum possible number of public service jobs from Dublin and move almost complete Departments and other public bodies to provincial centres. Ten thousand civil servants were to be decentralised, and the advantages for Dublin and the regions would be enormous. The promise was made, the commitment given and, of course, the expectation was therefore created.
Six months passed from that Budget Statement of 1999, and I raised the matter again in a Private Members' debate in June 2000, pointing out that there had been no progress. In October 2000, in a written question, I again asked the Minister for Finance about the Cabinet sub-committee on decentralisation. He confirmed that the Taoiseach, the Tánaiste, Deputy Harney, the Minister for the Environment and Local Government of the day, Noel Dempsey, and he, the Minister for Finance, were on it. Deputy McCreevy stated, most significantly:
I am satisfied that the Government will be in a position to take decisions in relation to the new programme by the end of this year.
He said that in October 2000 and yet tonight, on 14 May 2003, he said that he would not to be rushed into taking decisions prematurely. I quoted from 17 October 2000. The Minister repeated his statement during Oral Questions in the House on 26 October 2000. I questioned the Taoiseach in February 2002 – we will move the clock forward a couple of years – and he said that no announcements would be made before the general election but that enough work had been done for a new Minister for Finance to advance the programme. We did not get a new Minister for Finance, and we certainly did not see any advances in the programme.
That brings us to the aftermath of the general election of only 12 months ago – happy anniversary to all concerned. The commitment to decentralisation was repeated in the Agreed Programme for Government between Fianna Fáil and the absent Progressive Democrats. I questioned the Minister for Finance again on 12 November 2002, and now, safely embedded back in his old position at the start of another term in Government, lo and behold the Minister told us that it was "not possible for me to state at this time when the Government will be in a position to take a decision on the issue of decentralisation." That decision was supposed to have been made a full two years earlier, for in October 2000 he had said that we would have the full programme by the end of that year. However, it certainly did not come for Christmas 2000, and it has not come for any Christmas since, for any of our communities or for the civil servants themselves. In that reply, the Minister claimed that the Government had not acted before the general election lest it be accused of doing so for political purposes. I suggest that the reverse was more likely. It did not go ahead because of political considerations. However, Minister Browne knows that not going ahead with something for political purposes never worried Fianna Fáil before, and I wonder why, all of a sudden, it became such a consideration in this regard. It was another excuse for inaction. This Government has been speaking out of both sides of its mouth on this issue. The reality is that we have had zero delivery on decentralisation. Accordingly, I have no option but to give my full support to the Fine Gael motion.
For decades now we have had a very intense debate in relation to the need for balanced regional development in this country. Sadly, all we had was a debate. No matter how much talking needs to be done, there always comes a time for action. In relation to balanced regional development, the time for action came a long time ago but, unfortunately, it did not happen.
The publication of the national spatial strategy in recent months is the first major attempt by the Government to set the foundation for balanced regional development. That is the framework for the future. The country has to embrace that strategy to make it work so that the objective of a better geographical spread of economic activity and growth occurs right throughout the country. The spatial strategy is the foundation. However, we need to build on that foundation to give expression to the objectives of the strategy, to show to the regions that the spatial strategy will not be another report that will gather dust on the shelf.
At the time of the launch of the spatial strategy the Minister told us that now that the strategy was published it was up to the State, semi-State and various developmental and statutory authorities to buy into it, to tailor their policies and inputs to gateways and hubs identified in the strategy in order to bring the promised fruits of the strategy to fruition.
What better way for the Government to give a clear signal that this spatial strategy is for real and is the framework for the future than to decentralise Departments to the gateways and hubs identified in the strategy, particularly to the gateways and hubs that have not benefited to any degree from decentralisation previously – as the Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs, Deputy Ó Cuív said, preferably to the hubs – and, dare I join the queue and say it, preferably to east Galway and Tuam?
Let me quote from the contribution of the Minister for Defence last evening when he said: "The establishment of a new Government office in any provincial town has the potential to act as an economic catalyst for that area". The kick-start the spatial strategy needs now is that economic catalyst. I regret that I must part company with my constituency colleague, Deputy Connaughton, this evening because of the amendment moved last evening by Minister Smith, which refers to a commitment to move forward the progressive decentralisation of Government offices and agencies, taking account of the national spatial strategy. I will be supporting the Government amendment this evening.
Following a period of enormous economic prosperity what is delivered to the west is a damning indictment of this Government. As I said before in this House, Ireland has been "Dublinised" and "easternised" and the Pale has been reinstated. Various Ministers, including the present Minister, have promised decentralisation to various parts of this country. Imagine what a Government Department would do for the economy of a town in the west at a time when industries are closing down and not being replaced. When the Minister visited Clare a couple of years ago, he promised that a Department would be decentralised to Kilrush. That was also promised during the general election campaign. Can we afford to do this, given the poor infrastructure in Clare? The long-awaited Ennis by-pass was supposed to start in 1999 and then in 2002. With the general election over, it is now promised to start in 2004.
If we are serious about the national spatial strategy, we need to consider moving Departments out of Dublin. The Government promised that 10,000 civil servants would be involved in such a move which is justified by the traffic gridlock. I ask the Minister to grasp the nettle and proceed with decentralisation as a matter of urgency in the interests of the ordinary people of this island.
Decentralisation is a very important piece in the jigsaw that is balanced regional development. For many years now this Government has promised to decentralise jobs but we still await a comprehensive, strategically driven decentralisation programme. A few minutes ago Deputy Ó Caoláin outlined day and date regarding promises, promises and more promises from 1999, when we were promised radical decentralisation, to this very evening when the Minister told us that he would not be rushed. The question to the Minister this evening is the same as it has been for the past four years. When will he deliver on his promises to decentralise jobs?
Decentralisation has been on the agenda of this Government for so long that every dimension must have been studied in detail and the people needed to staff decentralised Government Departments must be well identified. A number of Deputies, and the Minister for Finance himself, have referred to a report in a newspaper earlier this week which stated that there are plenty of volunteers to staff decentralised Departments. This, if it is true, is very good news indeed. It removes at least that excuse for the Minister for Finance not to move this process forward immediately. It seems that public servants are ready, but is the Government prepared to do the right thing rather than pull the party political stroke? It must deliver equitable and effective decentralisation.
We can quite easily see a poor example of decentralisation in the problems being experienced in the Department of Agriculture and Food. The Department has failed to provide, within the programme of decentralisation, adequate opportunities for promotion. Decentralisation is not just about moving jobs from A to B. It is also about decentralising decision-making within Departments. We do not want a situation where all the major decisions and the most senior staff remain in Dublin.
I agree with the earlier comments of the Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs that what is needed is persuasion rather than a heavy hand when promoting decentralisation. However, I disagree with him on another issue. He said that gateway towns, being self-starters "really should not be considered for decentralised jobs". I contend that a town such as Sligo, which has been earmarked as a gateway in the national spatial strategy, but which has not benefited from job creation over the past ten years to any extent, should be considered for decentralised jobs. It is horses for courses, and one cannot make a general statement that gate way towns should not be considered for decentralised jobs. Surely the spatial strategy must be taken into consideration in this programme. Otherwise, the strategy is meaningless. If an area has not benefited from the growth in job creation over the past number of years, surely decentralisation of jobs is one way the Government can help to re-balance the situation.
Decentralisation programmes that have already been promised or were guaranteed before the last election – for example, the move of the Central Fisheries Board to Carrick-on-Shannon in County Leitrim which was absolutely guaranteed by the then Minister for the Marine and Natural Resources, Deputy Fahey, at the time – must be delivered. The office space is available in Carrick-on-Shannon and there is some urgency in the need to move premises from Dublin. That decision could and should be taken right now.
I wish to share my time with Deputies, Timmins, Enright and O'Shea.
The spatial strategy is a very important mechanism for ensuring that population is evenly distributed in the country. In particular, the dreadful overcrowding, overspill, total and absolute urban chaos in traffic, jobs etc., and the trend of everything going to Dublin must change. Six years ago when I was first elected to the Seanad I could drive to this House in roughly an hour. Now, if I leave home at 8 a.m. it takes an hour and a half to two hours. That is because all the development is taking place in Dublin and all the traffic is flowing into the city in the morning. It is a shame the Government has failed to tackle this issue.
During the past few weeks The Irish Times carried a series of damning indictments of Government and local government policy regarding the spatial strategy. The counties of Louth, Meath, Kildare and Wicklow are destroyed because of the lack of a plan, a strategy and a cohesive decision by the Government to have proper infrastructure and planning for the greater Dublin area. Towns such as Drogheda which are in the BMW region have become commuter towns. There is a proposal before Louth County Council that the village of Dunleer, with a population of 1,030 souls, be transformed in the space of five years into a major urban city of 40,000 people. Effectively, what is happening is that the developments around the outskirts of Dublin are developer-led and developers are deciding how big our villages will become. It is developers who put their bulldozers and JCBs through fine rural communities which deserve proper and decent planning. The difficulty is that if there is a national spatial strategy one must also have county development plans and local area plans dovetailing into what is in that strategy. That is not happening at present.
That the cost of building land is so great in the greater Dublin area is driving development into parts of other counties which are neither suitable nor acceptable. The reality is commuters are going there because it is the most affordable place they can get a home. How do people commute from the Glen of Aherlow and Wexford? Why do people commute from practically all Leinster counties to Dublin? The reason is the Government has no coherent strategy to create development in the growth centres. It does not have the determination or the will to drive through local development plans and a proper, cohesive and decisive scheme through county councils.
What has the Government done since it came to office last year? It has decentralised the Passport Office from Molesworth Street – 100 yards from here – to the town of Balbriggan which is practically in the city of Dublin. That has been done on the basis of spatial strategy. It is rubbish to say it has decentralised the Department to Balbriggan. The Passport Office should have been decentralised to south Louth. The two designated areas were north County Dublin or south Louth. The decisive intervention was made at a political level and in 2001 Balbriggan was identified as a location. There followed a process of looking at other areas. It was all a sham, it was a con.
Drogheda, with a population of over 30,000 people was not included in the national spatial strategy and was dismissed in the Government's assessment of its needs. A greenfield site in Drogheda was turned down in favour of a site in Balbriggan. That is shameful and disgraceful.
In regard to decentralisation, if other parts of Departments follow the same game plan as Balbriggan in terms of the Passport Office it would be a disgrace for the Government. When it comes to decentralisation of Departments, communities being considered should be informed and there should be openness and transparency about the choice and the decision making in that area. We will ensure that Government and all the works going on in the background will be exposed in situations such as what happened in Balbriggan.
The Passport Office is for all the country.
The Minister of State will need a passport to get out of here. The Government is a disgrace and does not want to know.
He does not want to go.
The Passport Office is the one part of the Civil Service that should not have been decentralised anywhere. As sure as night follows day almost everybody forgets to renew their passport and they have to get themselves to that office. I do not know how they will get to Balbriggan. The case can be made that they can post it. That is the one office I would never have moved.
For people on the northside of the county it is more convenient.
There are very few up there.
It is convenient to one's Deputy.
There are two issues in this motion – decentralisation and the national spatial strategy and the national development plan. The issue of decentralisation is of lesser importance as opposed to the larger concept. In Leinster there are the counties of Louth, Meath, Dublin, Wicklow, Wexford, Kildare, Carlow, Kilkenny, Laois, Offaly, Westmeath and Longford. My home county of Wicklow is out of place as there has never been decentralisation of any Government job to it. I am not sure but the same may apply in Carlow or in the part of the constituency I represent. That is unique. There are probably three or four counties that do not have Government offices decentralised. There is a higher proportion of civil servants living in Wicklow than in most counties. That it is in close proximity to Dublin should not debar it from consideration and I ask the Minister for Finance to take that into consideration.
With regard to the larger issue of the national spatial strategy and the national development plan, the national development plan was put on stream as aspirational and populist a few years ago to produce the plan that, even with the best will in the world, will never work. If any of us are here in 20 years' time, perhaps Deputy Enright and the Minister of State, Deputy Parlon, will see that little of it will be implemented.
When we had bad times we went out and sought foreign direct investment and did not mind where it went. We were happy to take it anywhere. By the nature of its proximity to Europe, airports and the better infrastructure, they settled within sheet 16, the old Ordnance Survey map for the greater Dublin area. That is where the vast majority of those people settled. With the advent of congestion and inadequate infrastructure, the push came for a spatial strategy to go out to the regions – a policy with which I agree. However, we have missed the plot because we have chosen too many centres. We have a population of approximately 4 million. Almost every town is a hub or a gateway. It is absolutely crazy. We should have kept it to three or four, be it Waterford, Cork, Limerick, Galway and maybe Sligo centred around the universities because the investment that comes into the country involves science and technology. These companies have to be near a university and a competitive labour market. With the best will in the world there is no point in putting them where there is no competitive labour market. We have seen the fruits of that in the industrial dispute taking place in the Department of Agriculture and Food due to a lack of promotion opportunities. The same will happen in the private sec tor except that in that sector people will not tolerate it and will move on.
It is a sad fact that companies will not locate in some of the locations we are talking about. What will happen is that the country will lose out due to the strategy we have outlined. The Government will not be foolish enough to follow the spatial strategy it will outline. It is difficult to tell somebody to live elsewhere. One has to put a strong incentive in place for them. There is no point in putting them in the middle of nowhere and hope it will work because it will not work. History has shown it will not work.
With regard to a policy for the greater Dublin area, we have the strategic guidelines to which Deputy O'Dowd referred. I read some of The Irish Times articles but they were not that accurate. They gave a one-sided view – the An Taisce line, so to speak. In regard to the strategic planning guidelines which the Minister drew up for Kildare, Meath and Wicklow, Mr. Justice Quirke in a court judgment in An Taisce v. Meath County Council said they were fundamentally flawed. That happened six months ago and I ask the Minster of State and his officials to take note of it and advise what they propose to do about it. I do not wish to see it sent to the Mid-East Regional Authority to be deliberated on for two or three years.
I compliment Deputy Connaughton on introducing this worthwhile motion. TheGovernment needs to outline its strategy on decentralisation and the criteria on which it will be delivered. We must ensure that it is fair, open and immune from opportunism, something that has been lacking in the Government.
Deputy Timmins referred to the national development plan and the national spatial strategy. The former could be described as the plan with the money while the latter could be described as the plan with a vision. Unfortunately, they lack any real planning and were delivered in the wrong order. The national development plan promised to progress infrastructure and other types of spending around the country while the national spatial strategy provides a list of places where hub and gateway towns should be developed. No funding has been provided to allow for the facilities required. It means that there will be no convergence between the plan and the strategy, especially given the order in which they were published.
I welcome the designation in my area of the towns of Mullingar, Athlone and Tullamore as a hub and I and my constituency colleague on the other side of the House hope it will work. However, unless the infrastructure is provided, including roads and rail services, nothing will happen. Similarly, unless there is funding to implement the national spatial strategy, the designation makes no sense.
The motion focuses on the question of decen tralisation. There is no doubt about the huge impact it can have on an area. Portlaoise and Tullamore within counties Laois and Offaly are good examples of the positive effect of decentralisation. However, it has been talked about for too long. I was elected to Offaly County Council in 1999, the year the Government made its original decisions on decentralisation, yet nothing has happened.
The Minster for Defence referred to the complexity of determining the shape of the significant programme of decentralisation. I am sure there are some complexities, but none arises when there is decentralisation to Roscrea, when all the paper work can be speedily addressed and all complexities speedily resolved. I am not opposed to decentralisation to Roscrea because if it is extended to my area, jobs will be provided. If the complexities for Roscrea can be addressed they can also be addressed elsewhere. Objective criteria must be used, which is the point we on this side of the House are seeking to make.
Deputy Fleming said the concern should be with people, not numbers. We are here to represent the wishes and the needs of the people, but we must ensure that we act on the basis of proper and objective criteria if we are to have any hope of delivering decentralisation properly. The Deputy opposed the Government's policy on road development and said it was a waste of national resources to construct motorways and by-passes. This is a change from his support for the Government's policy. I am glad he accepts that County Laois, where he lives, has been neglected by IDA Ireland and the Government.
Deputy Fleming is correct to point out that every local authority has contacted the Minister on the question of decentralisation. Some 110 submissions have been made to date. It is time we agreed on the criteria on which these submissions will be considered. The Minister for Finance referred to what he called misleading figures used by this side of the House. The figures we use have been provided by the Government in response to questions we have raised. The remarks on the numbers applying for decentralisation makes our point. People are applying because of their determination to live in the country and to get out of Dublin and the rat race of commuting from Tullamore, Portlaoise, Mullingar, Kildare and so on.
Our clinics are inundated on a weekly basis by people who are seeking to live near their workplace. They are willing to commute a certain distance, but they are unable to cope with family life when commuting to Dublin on a daily basis. That is why this issue is so urgent. Promises have been made. The Minister for Finance spoke of the media coverage of the issue and referred to one or two midland counties. The midland newspapers indicate that many more than one or two midland counties have been promised decentralisation. Indeed, every county appears to have been promised it. That is no longer acceptable. The Government must provide coherent criteria on which decisions will be made. It should stop making false promises, tell us what it proposes to do and how it will evaluate its decisions.
Ar an gcéad dul síos ba mhaith liom mo bhuíochas a chur in iúl don Teachta Ó Dubhda as ucht a chuid ama a roinnt liom. Tá áthas orm labhairt sa díospóireacht thábhachtach seo ar conas mar a theip ar an Rialtas na pleananna maidir le díláithriú a chur i gcrích. Molaim Fine Gael as ucht an rún seo a chur os comhair na Dála agus brú a chur ar an Rialtas an feachtas seo a chur i bhfeidhm go luath.
Yesterday, the Minister for Defence said the process of decentralisation was not as simple as listing a series of qualifying criteria against which the merits of the various towns should be measured and that for Fine Gael to suggest otherwise is opportunistic and cynical. In view of the Government's record, this is a disingenuous statement. In early 2002, the Minister for Finance spoke to the Cabinet on this issue. His speaking notes indicate that he wanted Ministers to proceed quickly on the question of ear-marking sections of their Departments for moves outside Dublin and to make definite proposals on a range of hard possibilities within a fortnight. The Minister said this would enable him to bring to Government a comprehensive memorandum on the issue within the next few months so that whatever arrangements on which the Government agreed could be put in train before the summer. However, as 2000 progressed, things began to slow down and it became clear that the Minister and the Government had bitten off more than they could chew.
With regard to the Waterford constituency, Fianna Fáil indicated that the remainder of the Land Registry and the supply section of the Office of Public Works would be decentralised to Waterford and Dungarvan respectively. In November 2001, Waterford local radio broadcast a report to the effect that the then Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy O'Donoghue, indicated that the full decentralisation of the Land Registry was still on the cards for Waterford. The report said the Minister was responding to suggestions that Waterford would be overlooked in the decentralisation proposals. It pointed out that the Minister indicated that the Government had taken no decision on decentralisation but that Waterford's case was strong and that he would support it. The report went on to point out that in response to a parliamentary question from me, the then Minister of State at the Department of Finance, Deputy Cullen, said that the site purchased in Dublin by his Department would be developed to provide office accommodation for the Land Registry and the DPP. The report pointed to the response by the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform to the effect that it would be a short-term measure. Perhaps the Minister of State, Deputy Parlon, could clarify this aspect.
In reply to a parliamentary question last month regarding proposals for a programme of decentralisation, the Minister for Finance replied that the Government remains committed to moving forward the progressive decentralisation of Government offices and agencies taking into account the national spatial strategy. He said that as he has previously indicated on many occasions, a wide range of important issues must be taken into consideration and that it is vital that all involved be consulted, be they staff concerned about their futures or departmental management concerned about the delivery of public services for which they have responsibility. He went on to say that given this wide ranging consideration, it would not be possible for him to state at this time when the Government will be in a position to take a decision on the issue of decentralisation.
That answer is vague and open-ended. It contains no mention of the 10,000 civil servants the Minister announced in his Budget Statement of December 1999 would be decentralised. In the real world of politics this has become a hot potato for the Fianna Fáil Party and the Government. No decisions will be taken by the Government ahead of the local and European elections to be held next year. Subsequent to that, with a general election looming, no decisions will be taken in the lifetime of the Government. In view of this, I do not believe the Government intends to pursue this programme and in the interests of political integrity it should be honest enough to say so.
I am delighted to take the opportunity this debate provides to highlight the Government's decentralisation plan which forms an integral part of our regional development strategy. There is agreement on all sides of the House that too great a proportion of our public administration is concentrated in the capital. In the last decade, the population of Blanchardstown rose by more than 40%, which is a massive increase, but the population of Ballycroy, a small community in north Mayo, fell by 14%. Dublin has rapid population growth which puts pressure on public services and threatens to damage quality of life, while in parts of rural Ireland the opposite is happening. Population decline is putting pressure on the viability of public services and threatening to damage the quality of life.
This pattern of development is neither economically efficient nor socially sustainable. One of the obvious solutions to this problem is to commence the decentralisation of civil and public service jobs from Dublin to other parts of the country. Decentralisation has the potential to revitalise towns and villages and the impact of relocating civil servants will be felt far beyond the urban centres in which they work. Decentralisation will have a major positive impact on the quality of life of thousands of families. As a Government, we can build crèches and implement flexible working hours for State workers, but we will never tackle the stress of commuter workers until we relocate Departments and ensure that people do not have to get on the road at 6 a.m. to be at their desk for 9 a.m. The pressures on house prices in recent years means that a three-hour daily commute from Kildare to Kildare Street seems like a stroll in the park given that many people travel from as far away as Wexford, Thurles, and Tullamore. I am personally aware of many civil servants who travel on a daily basis from my own constituency to and from Dublin. Given the commuting time involved and the hours in the normal working day, this cannot be sustained on a long-term basis. The pressure being put on individuals and family life is very real.
If economic circumstances force people to move that far away to achieve the perfectly legitimate aspiration of owning their own home, the least they should expect is greater accessibility to their place of work. It is important that any decentralisation programme embarked on by the Government uses objective criteria and that host towns are chosen because of the strength of the services they have to offer. Those towns with good schools, affordable housing and fine social, cultural and physical infrastructure should be considered favourably. The Office Of Public Works will be the agency which brings any future decentralisation plan to life. It will bring the decentralisation plan from the page to the public. Decentralisation should be located strategically within the chosen towns. Monolithic office blocks on the edges of small towns are not the way to proceed. We need to be imaginative and use decentralisation as an opportunity for urban regeneration and revitalisation. State offices should be flagship buildings which make a statement and represent a source of pride for local communities.
Decentralisation should be used as an economic torch to shine light into areas that have not prospered in recent years. The programme should focus on towns that have not benefited significantly from the recent boom. Many of the towns included as gateways and hubs in the spatial strategy are already significantly developed and would not be economically transformed in the same way as smaller towns by decentralisation. No one can convince me that prosperous places like Wexford, Kilkenny or Castlebar need another Department, but I could highlight many places in the midlands that desperately do. Contributions to this debate and the many meritorious cases made show how difficult a task it will be for the Government to decide. I am confident, however, that the Government will face its task and make the difficult decisions in the best interests of all involved.
We have had enough discussions about decentralisation and enough reports. It is time for action by a Government committed to the concept. We are committed to moving major blocks of our public administration from Dublin to provincial centres as an essential part of the process of regional development. Public servants are anxious to move. I support the commitment the Tánaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment, Deputy Harney, made at the recent Progressive Democrats party conference on decentralisation. She is committed to making a start this year to get things moving. I look forward to Government progress on this important issue as a concrete indication of a commitment to balanced regional development and I commend the Government's amendment to the House.
I wish to share time with Deputies Pat Breen, Neville and Connaughton.
Is that agreed? Agreed.
The most interesting comment in the Minister of State's speech is an example of Progressive Democrats speak. He says that economic circumstances force people to move far away to achieve the perfectly legitimate aspiration of owning their home. The Government response is to do something about moving jobs. This is the sort of thinking which has brought us to the crisis we are in. This country has a low density of population and ample opportunity to develop a sound urban structure in this city. There is plenty of land and a strong economy, but a dismal failure of political will means we cannot deliver to our people affordable homes in the city of Dublin. The Progressive Democrats' response is to shrug their shoulders and describe the phenomenon as an act of God. It is not an act of God, it is a failure of the Progressive Democrats and those around them to face up to their responsibilities. It is the task of Government to shape development, but this Government has introduced timid changes which have been swept away by market forces resulting in developer-led development. Developers leap-frog out to greenfield sites which can be developed quickly and cheaply, but which impose significant costs on the community. They damage its fabric while imposing lengthy commutes on people forcing them to place their children with carers early and to collect them late in the evening.
The Minister of State says that economic circumstances are responsible and that it is just too bad. The real reason is that the Government has failed to address its responsibilities. It has permitted a planning process to continue which is a shambles. There is no budget to back planning processes, instead a crude zoning approach is adopted in which schools, hospitals and social services are in no way involved. The result is that hospitals and educational infrastructure are not delivered on time to match community development. I could take the Minister of State to schools which are holed up in prefabs because he and his colleagues failed to anticipate their needs. I could bring him to hospitals in my constituency where people are spending four and five days on trolleys because the Minister of State and his colleagues failed to anticipate the need for extra hospital capacity to cope with a growing population.
The process is not inevitable and Ministers cannot shrug their shoulders about it, speak in a pathetic manner and make politically opportunistic statements about decentralisation. This is an issue the Government must face to deliver proper planning for the first time in this State. The Minister of State referred to the need for a spatial strategy, but the Government introduced its national development plan long before it had any idea of introducing such a thing. Now we are expected to believe the strategy will shape development. We are told the strategy will be integrated sometime in the mid-term review which is like producing architect's plans half way through building a house. The Minister of State is well aware of what will happen. The toilets will have to be shifted around while the house is replumbed, floor boards are pulled up and walls are broken down in order to retrofit. We have already seen that with the railway strategy.
Contractors will ride a coach and four across this and rub their hands in delight as Ministers change the commitments they have made. Developers will pile on extra expense and we will be left like the householder who has built a shiny new bathroom, but cannot afford to put in a toilet bowl. There is a €98 million unit in Blanchardstown which the Government cannot afford to open. The Luas has doubled in cost while the port tunnel will not be able to accommodate the trucks we know will try to use it. This is all because we do not have adequate planning.
There is the Red Cow roundabout.
Indeed, the mad cow roundabout. There has not been a word about responsibility, budgets or accountability in the spatial strategy which represents more of the sham which has always passed. It is full of guidelines, references to high-level groups, paperwork and pie charts, but all that will result is the using up of acres of forest and gallons of ink. Nothing will be delivered for the people of Dublin.
I thought we were discussing decentralisation, but Deputy Bruton did not say a word about it.
When the Government launched its national development programme in 1999, which was the same year it announced plans to decentralise 10,000 civil servants, it said the result would be more balanced regional development.
That was in 1999 and yet, some five years later, the national development plan is running years behind schedule with many projects being put on the long finger. The outgoing Government ran scared of implementing the decentralisation proposals before the 2002 general election. The Taoiseach and his Ministers criss-crossed the country during the campaign and promised decentralisation to every large town. When the Minister for Finance visited Kilrush, he promised the town would be included and the good news made headlines in the local media. The Fianna Fáil-led Government promised the sun, moon and stars in return for a second term.
That is not unusual.
The people complied and we are now paying the high price for trusting the word of the outgoing Government. No double-speak or second spin can detract from the fact that promises were made and broken. When the Government was returned to power in 2002, another clever promise-all document, the national spatial strategy, was launched by the Taoiseach and the Minister for the Environment and Local Government, Deputy Cullen. When he launched the document, the Taoiseach said it would bring a better spread of job opportunities, a better quality of life for all and better places in which to live. Even the Tánaiste, at the Progressive Democrat Party's conference some weeks ago, told members that the decentralisation programme would finally get under way later on in the year. However, the Department of Finance has warned that it could take up to ten years to complete the programme.
That was a genuine promise.
Is the public being conned again? Of course it is. To put the programme on the long finger flies in the face of Government backbenchers and local party interests seeking a Government Department or office in their own home town. By spreading the process over ten years, the Government will be able to announce good news for certain towns without having to say, in the short-term, that other towns are not part of the programme.
In the Clare constituency, Kilrush, which is part of the integrated Shannon decentralisation network, ISDN, in partnership with Listowel and Newcastle, has also prepared a submission. All three towns are ideal locations for Government Departments. Like other towns on the west coast, Kilrush has suffered depopulation in recent times. In 1986, Kilrush urban district had a population of 2,961 but by 1996, this figure had decreased to 2,594 and the 2002 figure will show a similar drop. These are the realities. Rural west Clare is dying and one Government Department for Kilrush would be like creating 10,000 new jobs for greater Dublin. Kilrush has the attractions, services, availability of building sites and a good quality of life, free from the traffic jams of our capital city.
How will the Government deliver a Government Department to Kilrush, Listowel and Newcastle West? First, the constituencies of Clare, Limerick West and Kerry North have no Cabinet Minister, so there is no one to lobby their case at the Cabinet table. None of the towns is listed as a hub or gateway in the spatial strategy document and, as we all know, hubs and gateways are the terms used for potential growth areas where jobs or investments are targeted.
The strategic rail review is another 20-year aspirational document that can be summed up in the six words, "all railway lines lead to Dublin". Will Dáil Deputies continue to get the same standard replies to our parliamentary questions, such as "submissions and representations have been received by my Department and a case for your town will be given consideration as part of the deliberative process"? The time has come for action. The need to take pressure off Dublin has never been greater and this has been acknowledged by everyone. The people will not be conned again. Time is running out and payback time for the people will come in the local and European elections in 2004. If action is not taken to fulfil the commitment to transfer 10,000 of the 18,000 civil servants, who have applied for the Government's long-awaited decentralisation programme, the Minister for State and his colleagues will face the consequences.
I welcome this debate which is important for all areas of the country and congratulate Deputy Connaughton on his initiative in bringing forward this motion. Certain areas were promised that they would be part of a decentralisation programme but there is a limited amount to go around. Promises were previously made in relation to Newcastle West and in recent days Deputies from the Government parties have made statements which suggest we can expect an announcement shortly that will be to its benefit and that of the rest of my constituency.
Our expectations were raised prior to the general election that we would soon hear announcements in our favour. In reply to a parliamentary question regarding decentralisation to Newcastle West, which I tabled on 12 June 2001, the Minister for Finance stated: "The position with regard to a new programme of decentralisation remains that it is my intention that the Government will be in a position to take decisions in relation to such a programme within the next couple of months." Obviously, that did not happen. I wonder why. Was it something to do with the impending election and the various promises that were made?
Two Ministers in the previous Government moved two Departments away from Dublin.
At least they did something.
The Minister of State did not tell us what he was going to do. I want to make a case for the ISDN because it is a unique project. Everyone is claiming their town should get a Department or a section thereof. The ISDN project has been developed by Shannon Development, a State body, to introduce real decentralisation to a region rather than a town or city. It incorporates three different counties and I wish to highlight the uniqueness of the proposal in that regard. There is an opportunity to decentralise a full Department to a region in this case. This will offer an opportunity to those who transfer to the region of having a follow-up career path. They will be able to seek promotion and develop their career within the region because of the easy access between Kilrush, Newcastle West and Listowel and will also come to an area which is well-serviced. Limerick city has a marvellous university and institute of technology, as well as all the other facilities people would need.
Acting Chairman
It does not have a football team.
I spoke to the Acting Chairman privately about that matter. However, now that I have the opportunity to do so, I wish to congratulate the footballers and commiserate with the Acting Chairman on Cork's terrible performance.
There is an excellent opportunity for partnership between the communities in those three towns and between the various organisations. Neither Newcastle West nor Limerick has benefited from the last Government or this one. The Minister of State now has the opportunity to make this happen, not only for west Limerick, but for Clare and Kerry.
There are no Ministers from there.
It is a disgrace.
A number of issues have emerged in this debate over the past two nights. The proposal to relocate 10,000 civil servants has been dropped. Neither the Minister of State nor any other member of the Government has mentioned that figure. In my opening speech last night, I said that one of the reasons the programme was not going ahead was that there was dissension in the Cabinet. There was certainly dissent before the Minister of State arrived tonight. If he reads the Minister's speech, he will see that he said decentralisation will happen when it suits the Minister for Finance and the Government. He also referred to some of the parish-pump politics that had been going on in the midlands.
We have learned new information during this debate, but we also had some information before it. We know that the decentralisation of Government Departments is a win-win situation for everyone. I do not have time to go back over all the ground but every area to which a Department has been decentralised has prospered. There are enough people around the country who want to live and work in their own area. The Government's fig-leaf that our figures are wrong is nonsense. The Minister for Defence, Deputy Smith, made a fool of himself last night when that was all he spoke about.
At the end of the day, the Government did not clarify when this part of the decentralisation programme would start. It has spent three years at it. I predicted last night that it would not come into effect for several years and I am now saying that again. The Minister of State did not say anything to the contrary, nor did the Ministers for Defence or Finance.
Promises, promises.
I do not know whether it is that they do not have the money or that they cannot agree among themselves, but whatever it is, they are doing rural Ireland a disservice by not giving an opportunity to the 110 groups all over this country that have ploughed their hard-earned funds into producing plans, which are a credit to them, to try to make the case for their areas. We asked for transparency. We wanted to know how it would be done and to make sure it would not be at the whim of a particular Minister. That is what the Progressive Democrats want too.
I found out tonight that Independent Deputy, Paddy McHugh, of my own constituency, was going to vote with the Government. He must be on his way home.
Amendment put.
Tá
|
Ahern, Michael.Andrews, Barry.Ardagh, Seán.Aylward, Liam.Brady, Johnny.Brady, Martin.Browne, John.Callanan, Joe.Carey, Pat.Carty, John.Cassidy, Donie.Collins, Michael.Cooper-Flynn, Beverley.Coughlan, Mary.Cregan, John.Cullen, Martin.Curran, John.de Valera, Síle.Dempsey, Noel.Dempsey, Tony.Dennehy, John.Devins, Jimmy.Ellis, John.Finneran, Michael.Fitzpatrick, Dermot.Fleming, Seán.Glennon, Jim.Grealish, Noel.Hanafin, Mary.Haughey, Seán.Hoctor, Máire.Jacob, Joe.Keaveney, Cecilia.Kelleher, Billy.Kelly, Peter. |
Killeen, Tony.Kirk, Seamus.Lenihan, Brian.Lenihan, Conor.McDaid, James.McEllistrim, Thomas.McGuinness, John.McHugh, Paddy.Martin, Micheál.Moloney, John.Moynihan, Donal.Moynihan, Michael.Mulcahy, Michael.Nolan, M. J.Ó Cuív, Éamon.Ó Fearghaíl, Seán.O'Connor, Charlie.O'Dea, Willie.O'Donnell, Liz.O'Donovan, Denis.O'Flynn, Noel.O'Keeffe, Batt.O'Malley, Tim.Parlon, Tom.Power, Peter.Power, Seán.Ryan, Eoin.Sexton, Mae.Smith, Brendan.Smith, Michael.Wallace, Dan.Wallace, Mary.Walsh, Joe.Wilkinson, Ollie.Woods, Michael.Wright, G.V. |
Níl
|
Boyle, Dan.Breen, James.Breen, Pat.Broughan, Thomas P.Bruton, Richard.Burton, Joan.Connaughton, Paul.Connolly, Paudge.Costello, Joe.Coveney, Simon.Crawford, Seymour.Crowe, Seán.Cuffe, Ciarán.Deenihan, Jimmy.Durkan, Bernard J.English, Damien.Enright, Olwyn.Gogarty, Paul.Gormley, John.Harkin, Marian.Hayes, Tom.Healy, Seamus.Higgins, Joe.Higgins, Michael D.Hogan, Phil.Howlin, Brendan.Kehoe, Paul.Lynch, Kathleen.McCormack, Padraic. |
McGinley, Dinny.McGrath, Finian.McGrath, Paul.McManus, Liz.Mitchell, Olivia.Morgan, Arthur.Murphy, Gerard.Naughten, Denis.Neville, Dan.Ó Caoláin, Caoimhghín.Ó Snodaigh, Aengus.O'Dowd, Fergus.O'Keeffe, Jim.O'Shea, Brian.O'Sullivan, Jan.Pattison, Seamus.Penrose, Willie.Perry, John.Quinn, Ruairi.Rabbitte, Pat.Ring, Michael.Ryan, Eamon.Ryan, Seán.Sargent, Trevor.Sherlock, Joe.Shortall, Róisín.Stagg, Emmet.Timmins, Billy.Twomey, Liam.Upton, Mary. |
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Hanafin and Kelleher; Níl, Deputies Durkan and Stagg.
Amendment declared carried.
Question put: "That the motion, as amended, be agreed to."
Tá, 71; Níl 58.
Tá
|
Ahern, Michael.Andrews, Barry.Ardagh, Seán.Aylward, Liam.Brady, Johnny.Brady, Martin.Browne, John.Callanan, Joe.Carey, Pat.Carty, John.Cassidy, Donie.Collins, Michael.Cooper-Flynn, Beverley.Coughlan, Mary.Cregan, John.Cullen, Martin.Curran, John.de Valera, Síle.Dempsey, Noel.Dempsey, Tony.Dennehy, John.Devins, Jimmy.Ellis, John.Finneran, Michael.Fitzpatrick, Dermot.Fleming, Seán.Glennon, Jim.Grealish, Noel.Hanafin, Mary.Haughey, Seán.Hoctor, Máire.Jacob, Joe.Keaveney, Cecilia.Kelleher, Billy.Kelly, Peter. |
Killeen, Tony.Kirk, Seamus.Lenihan, Brian.Lenihan, Conor.McDaid, James.McEllistrim, Thomas.McGuinness, John.McHugh, Paddy.Martin, Micheál.Moloney, John.Moynihan, Donal.Moynihan, Michael.Mulcahy, Michael.Nolan, M. J.Ó Cuív, Éamon.Ó Fearghaíl, Seán.O'Connor, Charlie.O'Dea, Willie.O'Donnell, Liz.O'Donovan, Denis.O'Flynn, Noel.O'Keeffe, Batt.O'Malley, Tim.Parlon, Tom.Power, Peter.Power, Seán.Ryan, Eoin.Sexton, Mae.Smith, Brendan.Smith, Michael.Wallace, Dan.Wallace, Mary.Walsh, Joe.Wilkinson, Ollie.Woods, Michael.Wright, G.V. |
Níl
|
Boyle, Dan.Breen, James.Breen, Pat.Broughan, Thomas P.Bruton, Richard.Burton, Joan.Connaughton, Paul.Connolly, Paudge.Costello, Joe.Coveney, Simon.Cowley, Jerry.Crawford, Seymour.Crowe, Seán.Deenihan, Jimmy.Durkan, Bernard J.English, Damien.Enright, Olwyn.Gogarty, Paul.Gormley, John.Harkin, Marian.Hayes, Tom.Healy, Seamus.Higgins, Joe.Higgins, Michael D.Hogan, Phil.Howlin, Brendan.Kehoe, Paul.Lynch, Kathleen.McCormack, Padraic. |
McGinley, Dinny.McGrath, Finian.McGrath, Paul.McManus, Liz.Mitchell, Olivia.Morgan, Arthur.Murphy, Gerard.Naughten, Denis.Neville, Dan.Ó Caoláin, Caoimhghín.Ó Snodaigh, Aengus.O'Dowd, Fergus.O'Keeffe, Jim.O'Shea, Brian.O'Sullivan, Jan.Pattison, Seamus.Penrose, Willie.Quinn, Ruairi.Rabbitte, Pat.Ring, Michael.Ryan, Seán.Sargent, Trevor.Sherlock, Joe.Shortall, Róisín.Stagg, Emmet.Stanton, David.Timmins, Billy.Twomey, Liam.Upton, Mary. |
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Hanafin and Kelleher; Níl, Deputies Durkan and Stagg.
Question declared carried.