Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 2 Dec 1981

Vol. 331 No. 5

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

The following motion was moved by Deputy O'Malley on Tuesday, 1 December 1981:

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

Debate resumed on amendment No. 1:

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

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

—(Minister for Finance)

Mr. Wilson

I want to recap on some of the points made by the Minister for Finance, who put up a very poor case. There was nothing of substance in what he had to say in regard to why this programme should not be proceeded with. He mentioned the election and said it was important to take into account that there had been an election between the time the decisions were made and the scheme was set up by the previous Government, and consequently that imposed some kind of obligation on him and on the Government.

I am not aware that at any time in any of the places where the new centres of employment were to be developed the Fine Gael or Labour candidates in the general election said they would not go ahead with these schemes. I know that the Minister for Fisheries and Forestry in my constituency did not at any time tell the people it would be part of the Government's policy to delay this scheme if Fine Gael were elected to Government. I am sure I can rely on the Minister for Fisheries and Forestry in Government to oppose what the Minister for Finance is doing in the long-fingering or scrapping of this scheme.

I want to reiterate what I said last night, that a great deal of detailed work had been done by Deputy Fitzgerald, then Minister, and Deputy Calleary, then Minister of State, and that the unions were informed of the Government's intentions. We were quite satisfied that any teething troubles there might be, could be overcome, as they were in the case of the decentralisation of part of the Department of Education to Athlone and part of the Department of Lands to Castlebar. The Minister for Finance was very harassed in his approach to the funding. I will not go into any detail. My colleague, Deputy Barrett, will deal in more depth with the funding of our proposed scheme. It was not envisaged that we would be borrowing abroad for this development.

I reject vehemently the implication in what the Minister for Finance said, that somehow or other, if the services were located outside Dublin, those services would be inferior to the services provided in Dublin. I do not think there is any substance whatsoever in this. The Minister was very cautious about the infrastructural services necessary for setting up of the offices in the various centres. I can tell the House that the areas mentioned for decentralisation are crying out for development. If the scheme is proceeded with, the injection of real life and vigour into those areas will benefit the country as a whole. It is in those areas we would be concentrating our development and not be afraid to say: "If we give services there we cannot give them some place else". That kind of specious pleading does not cut any ice in the House or in the country.

The Minister for Finance mentioned the OPW and the supervisory role of that office. Of course the OPW have a role in stating what the Government Departments to be decentralised would need. Surely the Minister for Finance was not saying that the private interests who were going to develop those centres would somehow or other squander their own resources. There was a lack of logic in what the Minister for Finance said in this regard yesterday. He promised a decision. It was very difficult to know what his intention would be. He promised a decision very soon. Now is the time for the Minister for Finance or for the Minister of State in his Department to announce positively that the well-thought out, well-structured scheme, to which a great deal of study and discussion had been devoted, will go ahead. In essence, the Government are long-fingering if not scrapping the whole idea. I indicated that all the homework had been thoroughly done by Deputy Fitzgerald, Deputy Calleary and by the outgoing Government.

Decentralisation is regional development. The whole philosophy of decentralisation has been elaborated over the years. I want to mention, in passing, the NESC Report No. 28, Service Type Employment and Regional Development, NESC Report No. 10, Comments on Report of Committee on Development Centres and Industrial Estates and Regional Studies in Ireland. It is interesting for the House to note that the Buchanan Report mentioned Dundalk, Sligo, Athlone, Tralee, Letterkenny, Castlebar and it mentioned Cavan as a centre of development for the counties Cavan, Longford and Monaghan. I am saying this to indicate that there has been plenty of discussion. Now is the time for action. It was precisely action that the Fianna Fáil Government were concentrating on because the time for talking had ended.

I would like to quote from Administration, volume 24, page 356, where Mr. Barrington stated:

If ever a policy of decentralising jobs was to make any sense, it should be related to office jobs. The government itself as a major employer is a main sinner here. The Irish system of government is extraordinarily centralised and concentrated in the capital city. We think of French government as being highly centralised; but only just over a quarter of French civil service jobs are in Paris itself. In Dublin we have almost two-thirds. Comparisons with other countries are likewise unfavourable. One of the biggest things government could do for regional development is to have a real policy for decentralising office jobs — especially public service ones.

I am sorry I have not time to elaborate. The discussion has gone on, the debate has gone on, the studies have gone on and we now want action. We have had the briathar, briathar, briathar. We want the beart, the beart, the beart.

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

No decision on this issue of decentralisation, so called, has, as yet, been taken by the Government. As my colleague, the Minister for Finance, indicated last night, the so-called programme is under review. Any responsible Government coming into office should give it a full review. For example, the most striking thing I found in my examination of the file was the extraordinary coincidence whereby each area selected for decentralisation coincided with the fact that there was a Minister in each of the particular centres. That was quite extraordinary.

Mr. Gene Fitzgerald

That will not happen now. They are all in Dublin.

Mr. B. Desmond

I recall Deputy Wilson saying here that a massive amount of analysis went into this project. He will recall that when his colleague, Deputy Fitzgerald, was Minister for the Public Service he suggested that Monaghan town would be a desirable area. It was rather strange, that presumably at a Cabinet meeting, Monaghan town became Cavan town.

Mr. Wilson

They are all the same.

Mr. B. Desmond

What is the difference between Cavan town and Monaghan town?

Mr. Wilson

There is no difference.

Mr. B. Desmond

One might ask why not Wexford for a decentralised area? It happens that by an extraordinary coincidence of all the available towns, if one excludes the Dublin members of the Cabinet, excludes Deputy Power who is in the eastern region and excludes Deputy Fitzgerald who is in Cork, and one presumably does not decentralise from Dublin to Cork——

Mr. Gene Fitzgerald

Unfortunately.

Mr. B. Desmond

Presumably one wants to help the infrastructures but by an extraordinary coincidence Limerick had a Cabinet Minister. Ennis was chosen and there was a Cabinet Minister there. Nenagh was chosen and there was a Cabinet Minister there. Sligo was chosen and there was a Cabinet Minister there. Cavan was chosen after changing from Monaghan and, again, there was a Cabinet Minister there.

Mr. Wilson

The Buchanan Report.

Acting Chairman (Mr. D. Gallagher)

The Minister of State should be allowed to proceed without interruption.

Mr. B. Desmond

Athlone and Galway were chosen and there were Cabinet Ministers in both areas. I pose the question: why not Monaghan as against Cavan, why not Wexford, Westport, Tullamore, Carrick-on-Shannon or Kilkenny? Apparently none of these areas merited consideration at that time.

Mr. Wilson

The Minister has not read the literature.

Mr. B. Desmond

I would be grateful if I were allowed to make my contribution without interruption. It was sensible of the Government to review this analytical decentralisation programme of the previous Government. Much has been made of the argument that there would be no net cost to the Exchequer. I took a note of what Deputy O'Malley said last evening. He said "buildings would have to be built anyway" and he went on to say that the net cost to the Exchequer would be nil and that, in fact, the Exchequer would save £5 million, £10 million or £15 million. He added that the provision of offices in the provinces would substitute for offices in Dublin.

I can assure the House this was not the intention of the previous Government. The press release on the decentralisation proposals on 22 October 1980 makes it plain that one of the consequences of the programme would be "a significant contribution to the creation of jobs in the construction industry and in ancillary industries". Fianna Fáil cannot have it both ways. If Deputy O'Malley was correct yesterday evening that substitution rather than the construction of additional buildings was planned, then the press release issued on 22 October 1980 was misleading.

The concept of a decentralisation programme should be put in a broad context. The 1981 population census gives a figure of 1,002,000 people in the greater Dublin area. The previous Government announced they were introducing a programme of massive decentralisation, that they would send 3,100 civil servants out of Dublin. Presumably 400 or 500 would be married and the rest would be single but the total dispersal to the whole of Ireland out of the Dublin population would not be more than 4,500 people. The net effect of moving 4,500 people out of a population of 1,002,000 would be .45 per cent. The former Government called that a decentralisation programme but it was no more than a transfer system for a few Government Departments. It was not a decentralisation programme by any stretch of the English language. It was a blatant election gimmick by Fianna Fáil before the last general election.

One of the problems confronting the Government on inheriting the proposed decentralisation programme was the matter of finding finance in addition to the normal programme needs of the Office of Public Works. If private finances were available it would ease the problem but, as the Minister for Finance has said, the terms offered by private property developers were far from acceptable. This is all on the files in the various Departments. Contrary to what Deputy O'Malley said, the offers by private developers per square footage of office space were precisely the same rates as applied in Dublin. I see the former Minister shaking his head, It is said that a great deal of work was done in this area but I do not know where it was done. There is little evidence of it on file. Admittedly work was done in respect of sites, but as far as tenders from private developers and actual construction work are concerned there is scant evidence that much was done. It has been suggested there are many philanthropic office developers in the provinces willing to charge construction and rental charges at a much lower rate than applies in Dublin. I would love to meet some of these people. There is nothing in the files of the Department of Finance to bear out what Deputy O'Malley suggested. Therefore, let us put all that nonsense out of our heads in considering the proposals here.

We must remember that much accommodation is needed in the Dublin area, irrespective of whether we go ahead with the programme. There is a substantial programme needed for existing staffs in the greater Dublin area. The more money that is diverted into the building or the renting of new office blocks in provincial towns the less will be available for absolutely essential construction and for the removal of bad office accommodation in existing offices.

I must confess I was somewhat taken aback yesterday evening by the virulence of Deputy O'Malley's remarks and by the anti-Dublin tone he adopted. I could see a worried frown on the brow of the former Taoiseach, Deputy Haughey, when he was speaking. Dáil Deputies are responsible for the entire country, not just for Dublin, Limerick or any other part. It is important to remember that slightly more than one-third of the registered unemployed are in the eastern region. This region, for the most part Dublin, accounts for a higher proportion of people under the age of 25 on the live register. In other words, the incidence of youth unemployment in the eastern region, including Deputy Haughey's constituency, is marginally higher than for the rest of the country. These facts are readily available to Deputies. In the building and construction sector 70 per cent of those who are insured and registered are unemployed in the Dublin area. Dublin has 29 per cent of the total population.

The great denunciation of Dublin by Deputy O'Malley last night was highly selective and damaging. I am not trying to say that Dublin is necessarily worse off than the rest of the country but it has similar problems to the rest of the country. Arising from the proportion of the population living in this area, the scale of the problems in terms of numbers is daunting. I so not want to enter into polemical arguments with the Deputy about the virtues of living in Dublin or living in Limerick. I could be very scathing about some of the temping prospects I would hold out in that regard. I shall refrain from that kind of provincialism. As one who came to live in Dublin 24 years ago I have found employment and living here as good as and in some respects better than living in other areas. I do not wish to get into that kind of non-productive argument which would not help anyone in objectively assessing this programme.

It was mentioned that there would be a loss of jobs if the programme was not proceeded with. We have taken no decision not to proceed with the programme. It is under review and we hope to have a decision at Government level in the new year. It is not true to say that the towns nominated for decentralisation will lose jobs. The local benefits from decentralisation would arise from the spin-off effects of the extra local spending represented by the salaries of those transferred to the various towns. No new jobs as such would be created. The nonsense about a loss of 1,000 jobs is misleading. Civil servants will be transferred on a voluntary basis and I am sure there will be sufficient volunteers to go to these centres in the event of the Government deciding to go ahead with the programme. I do not want to jump the gun on negotiations with the public service staff or their representatives.

Deputies O'Malley and Wilson inferred that everything was signed, sealed and delivered. That is not so. Consultations with the staff in each Department will be essential. There have only been three meetings with staff representatives to inform them of the proposals and keep them up to date on developments. Is that conclusive negotiation with the trade unions concerned? Much remains to be discussed. This aspect of staff transfer will be one aspect of the review we have at present. We must ensure, if the decision is to go ahead, that the staff to be transferred are of a particular rank and have particular expertise. I am sure there is no need for me to say that to Deputy Barrett. One does not transfer a Government Department from Dublin to a provincial centre and simply send all staff at clerical assistant level. One must send staff of all grades with expertise and experience. That takes time. There will be no compulsory transfers.

Reference was made to the sites which were available. Some State-owned sites are involved and these are at Athlone, Galway and Nenagh. These are valuable. I do not understand the jig of a reel on the part of Deputy O'Malley because he knows that Limerick was stopped at sketch plan stage pending the outcome of an archaeological excavation on the site there. There is a great to-do about the Government's decision to stop the programme. Deputy Wilson maintained 15 minutes ago that everything had gone through and all the work was done. Take Ennis and Dundalk. No planning has commenced in those two centres. The position with regard to the sites there had not been sufficiently clarified. Deputy Barrett should consult with his colleagues in relation to this matter and see what they were up to when they went out of office. We pointed out that the cost involved of sending 3,100 civil servants from various Departments to centres in the country has been estimated by the Department to be £50 million to £51 million. That money will be all taxpayers' money. Deputy Bruton said the cost in terms of allowances payable to staff for transferring could be up to £5 million or £6 million. This money has to be borrowed and the question must be asked whether the yield is commensurate with the outlay. That is important.

An impression has wrongly been created that Dublin is a steaming civil service office-block with all the civil servants and those engaged in administration running madly around the centre of Dublin in and out of offices. That is not true. Much play was made of the fact that only 40 per cent, about 23,000 out of 60,000 civil servants are located outside of Dublin. It will come as a surprise to many to know that there are 23,000 civil servants actually working outside of Dublin. There are 60,000 in all. Four out of every ten civil servants in the civil service proper work outside Dublin and, that represents only part of the story. Take the industrial employees, the craftsmen and the general workers employed by the OPW and the Department of Fisheries and Forestry. There are about 5,500 such workers in the country and of those general employees in the OPW and the Department of Fisheries and Forestry no less than eight out of every ten are based and work outside of Dublin.

Mr. Barrett

(Clare): There is no work in Dublin for their category.

Mr. B. Desmond

They work and live outside of Dublin, so why the great hoo-ha about decentralisation in that regard? Let us take another aspect of national public administration. The vast bulk of Army personnel, gardaí, teachers, health board staffs, local authority staffs and staffs of State-sponsored bodies work and live outside Dublin. For example, 67 per cent of all staff of local authorities work and live outside Dublin.

Mr. Barrett

(Clare): Where else would they live?

Mr. B. Desmond

Therefore, where is the argument for decentralisation?

Mr. Barrett

(Clare): Do they all work in Dublin?

Mr. B. Desmond

Therefore——

Mr. Barrett

(Clare): This is not decentralisation.

Mr. B. Desmond

Decentralisation has to be taken in context. Taking the health agency staffs and leaving out the Eastern Health Board, which comprises the counties of Dublin, Kildare and Wicklow, 62 per cent of all health board staffs in the country are located outside Dublin. Therefore, we have to think of the staffs in that context. While 60 per cent of the civil service is located in Dublin, it would be quite wrong to imply that 60 per cent of public sector employment is located in Dublin also. That is not so. The vast bulk of public sector employment is located outside Dublin. Of course, as Deputy Barrett rightly said, they are located broadly in proportion to the overall population distribution. In other words, while Dublin serves as an essential central base for many basic services because they cannot be located anywhere other than generally in the Dublin area, one cannot decentralise to the extent of destroying those services.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Minister of State has four minutes to conclude.

Mr. B. Desmond

One has to consider decentralisation under three criteria. If the decentralisation will yield benefits commensurate to some reasonable degree with the total cost involved, then generally I would favour decentralisation. If decentralisation brings services closer to the people whom they are designed to serve and if that proved to be a reasonable proposition in relation to particular Government Departments, then I would favour aspects of decentralisation. If it can be proved that the spin-off for regional development is of such magnitude that, despite the cost involved, it would be worth while, I would favour decentralisation. But one has to be careful of the benefits to be anticipated. If the benefits to be anticipated from expenditure on decentralisation are as great as those to be expected from any alternative investment opportunity available to us, then I favour decentralisation. Finally, we have to take into account in relation to the so-called programme of the last Government — which is not a decentralisation programme at all, it is just a transfer of about half a dozen Departments to certain towns depending on where Ministers came from — if the overall state of the nation's finances is such as to allow all that, then I would support it.

The Fianna Fáil Party have a concept of decentralisation whereby every town in Ireland will have an Army barracks, a health board headquarters, a regional hospital, a psychiatric hospital, an airport, an international sports complex, a huge AnCO training centre, half a dozen civil service Departments working all in that town of 5,000 or 10,000 people. They envisage manpower offices, employment offices and tax offices all transferred into the centre with ACOT offices and so on, a drugs squad, social welfare offices, telecommunications centres and so on. If what Fianna Fáil are trying to cod the people about took place, it would be the greatest natural increase in population those towns have had in all their history. That is not decentralisation. It is political nonsense. It is promising people benefits which we all know cannot be delivered. To suggest that the proposal of the Fianna Fáil Cabinet of October 1980 represented a policy of decentralisation is to cod the people. It is irrelevant in terms of population shift.

In conclusion, while the Government are examining the current proposals very carefully, we have not decided to defer the programme. We have not decided to abandon any part of the programme. We are looking at all of the options open to the Government at this stage and all of the representations which are being made, and all of the files are open for analysis. We are not going to do what Fianna Fáil were proposing to do, to run away like mad and, because eight or nine rural Ministers lived in particular towns, spend £51 million of taxpayers' money just like that and another £7 million or £8 million on staff transfers. We will do what is to be done responsibly and objectively for the benefit of all the people. I have no doubt that when the final decision is made the people will respect it, and reject the nonsense that we found on this issue when we took up office — a short-term general election gimmick with the former Taoiseach parading around the country into every town telling the people that we were all going to be decentralised, all the civil service jobs were coming down from Dublin, and that kind of nonsense. It has to stop and I think we have brought an end to it on this occasion.

Mr. Barrett

(Clare): I found some parts of the contribution of the Minister of State rather amusing, particularly his drawing of an analogy between the civil service and the fact that the Army are dispersed throughout the country as are the Garda and the local authorities. Surely he is not serious when he makes such comparisons. Units of the Army have to be stationed at the most strategic parts of the country in order to fulfil the purpose for which they are there. Likewise gardaí have to be dispersed. Above all, I do not know how you can visualise the staffs of local authorities and health boards living in and around Dublin. He tells us that they are not, they are all down the country. Where else should they be but in their own areas? Should Clare County Council staff be in Dublin?

Mr. B. Desmond

This points up the nonsense the Deputy is talking.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Minister of State will have to allow Deputy Barrett to make his contribution.

Mr. Barrett

(Clare): Now we are informed that this decision to decentralise published on 22 October 1980 is being reviewed. Everything that had been there and had been reviewed and examined fully when this Government took over is being reviewed again. Such an amount of reviewing is going on that they do not know where the staff are to be found to review all these projects that have to be reviewed. One thing is certain so far as this decentralisation programme is concerned. Even if this Government decide to let it go ahead, all they are doing at present with this review is delaying the whole programme. We all know that delay in construction of buildings means greater costs. If the review is only a postponement, it will cost the taxpayer more money because of increasing costs. Now that it is being reviewed there are factors which were considered by the Fianna Fáil Government and the committee which was set up by them to examine the whole question of decentralisation. That committee represented a number of Departments, the Department of Fianance the Board of Works, the Department of the Environment, the Department of Education, the Department of the Public Service and the Department of Social Welfare. It was broadly representative of the Departments which were earmarked for decentralisation later. We are having a review of something that was fully examined over a period by the previous Government and by the committee which I have just mentioned.

Mr. Corish

The Deputy left out Wexford.

Mr. Barrett

(Clare): There are factors in this review which should be seriously considered. If the civil service is decentralised, surely it will mean a major source of employment immediately in the construction industry in the building of offices which will be necessary for this programme? The construction industry badly needs a transfusion at present, as the Minister of State should know. The total number involved, 3,210, is of no mean significance, not only because of the numbers involved but because they will be permanently in the areas to which they are being allocated. Surely this will revitalise the areas to which they are moving. All these people will need houses which, in turn, will have to be designed and constructed. This will be carried out by the local labour force. When the houses are constructed they will need furnishings which will be purchased locally. The Minister of State said there will be no spin-off as a result of decentralisation. I disagree with him. It must lead to further employment in these areas.

The most important factor is the transfusion of spending power which will go into all these areas. We estimate, at present rates of pay, that the amount involved in this spending power will be £30 million. This is a sizeable sum to be injected into these towns in the designated areas. All these people will have to purchase food and clothing. They will also need entertainment and transport. Supplying all these needs will provide more employment. All the facts I have mentioned were regarded as pertinent to the principle of decentralisation under the last Government. The estimated cost, which is slightly in excess of £50 million, has been mentioned here. My colleague, Deputy O'Malley, went into some detail yesterday evening and he rightly maintained that there would not be a saving of £50 million because, if decentralisation does not take place, offices will still have to be provided in Dublin. Already there is a big demand for office accommodation in Dublin and it is running in the region of about £8 per square foot in the central areas. If the Government do not build offices they will be obliged to rent them. Apart from decentralisation, there is such overcrowding in some Departments at present that office space still has to be found.

There was a proposal to build more offices in the grounds of the Department of Defence but nothing has been done yet. The proposal has been with the Board of Works for some time. There is serious overcrowding in that Department. There is also overcrowding in the Department of the Environment which, contrary to what some people believe, is not all housed in the Custom House. It is in six different sections throughout the city. There was such serious accommodation problems in that Department, especially in O'Connell Bridge House, that strike action was threatened. Some relief was afforded when the Board of Works rented some offices on the north side of the city but, as far as I know, there is still overcrowding there.

The same probably applies to a number of other Departments in Dublin, so accommodation will have to be found in cases of overcrowding apart from decentralisation. The civil service is growing so rapidly that new accommodation will always be needed. Therefore, it is wrong to say that this will mean a saving of £50 million. The Fianna Fáil Party proposed involving the private sector in this programme and I know that during the term of office of Deputy Gene Fitzgerald, he took a personal interest in this programme and these proposals. He was chairman of the committee and, when he was unavailable, his colleague, the Minister of State, Deputy Calleary, chaired it in his place. Despite what the Minister of State said, meetings took place fortnightly——

Mr. Gene Fitzgerald

That is true.

Mr. Barrett

(Clare): The Minister of State said meetings took place only three or four times during one period. The matter was treated in a very serious fashion because of the involvement of the Minister for Finance and his colleague, the Minister of State. I would like to know if the present Minister for Finance is sitting in on these reviews or if he is interested in them.

Mr. Gene Fitzgerald

He had no meetings since 30 June.

Mr. Barrett

(Clare): In order to involve the private sector, discussions took place with a number of interested developers. There was interest in this type of development. It has been stated by the Minister and his Minister of State that private developers in rural areas wanted to charge the same rent for office accommofation as is charged in Dublin. I maintain they did not want the same level; they wanted the rents related to Dublin office rates. That is a reasonable request. They did not want the rents to be on a par with those charged for office accommodation in St. Stephen's Green. As we do not have accommodation in other parts of the country on the same scale as in Dublin, these people should be entitled to relate charges for office accommodation to those charged in this city. Rents charged in the centre of Dublin reach £8 per square foot. I wanted to clarify that point.

The Office of Public Works claim they have the right to provide office accommodation for any State Department. I was personally involved in decentralisation, although that was not the first attempt at decentralisation. In August 1977 I went before the Government and recommended that part of the Department of the Environment should be decentralised, and the Government agreed. Then the location was decided. We chose Shannon new town, which was still under construction. I maintain that that decentralisation would give an identity to that new town. Such an identity is very important to a new community. Shannon Free Airport Development Company being on the spot, I decided they would carry out this decentralisation and I informed the Department's officials that that was how we would tackle it, but the Office of the Public Works claimed their right.

As I said, that decision to decentralise was made in August 1977. Tenders were sought in June 1980; the contractor was appointed shortly after September, and work started in May 1981, fortunately before the change of Government. That took four years and the Office of Public Works were the main agents. This should not have taken such a long time because the delay added enormously to the costs of the office block. Last year there was a 22 per cent increase in labour costs for the building industry.

Foreign borrowing seems to be a bogey of this Government. They put their hands in the air when anyone mentions it. If the private sector were involved, there would be no need for the State to borrow abroad. The private sector would get their money at the cheapest rate. What does it matter if the borrowing is from Dame Street, Paris or Frankfurt so long as it is at the cheapest rate?

In Dublin it is estimated that 20 per cent of the total cost of an office block is set off against the cost of a site. There is no way a site in the country could cost anything like 20 per cent of the total cost. In my own town I know a sizeable site — I forget the exact number of acres — which has been purchased and the contract signed, for £178,000. There are other matters which make it more expensive to build office accommodation in Dublin than in the country. As a condition in the planning permission, Dublin Corporation insist that part of an office block development must also be residential. As far as I know the residential part of these developments is done at cost because there is very little revenue from the residential side. It is all charged to the letting of the office areas. These reasons make rural Ireland more attractive for office building.

Last evening the Minister said the Office of Public Works would not have a real involvement or have a real say in the design and/or supervision of these office blocks if the private sector were involved. I estimate that 75 per cent of State office accommodation in this city was not designed or supervised by the Office of Public Works, and there is no doubt that the rented office accommodation in Dublin is first class. One of my colleagues has his office in Setanta House and he tells me there is no comparison between his office and mine. I have not heard any criticism of any office block rented by any State Department in this city. All I heard is praise. Accommodation in a central part of the city, at St. Stephen's Green, is now realising about £8 per square foot but the Department of Finance already has office accommodation in Sarsfield House in Limerick. Two tax inspectors are based there with their staff and as far as I am aware the cost of that accommodation is £4 per quare foot. That is an important consideration if the Minister is starting to worry about tax payers and the cost of accommodation to them. The Minister mentioned the need to save money, but in fact he is not saving any.

It should be remembered that there will be rent escalation clauses in pre-letting agreements involving the private sector. At every review those letting the accommodation will be entitled to a percentage increase on the existing rent, but those percentages could be related to the secondary office blocks located in what are described as secondary areas, away from places such as St. Stephen's Green. I am referring to places like Blackrock. The Minister also mentioned the question of accessibility for the public and how they would find transport to places like Ennis, Killarney, Athlone and other centres. There has never been any difficulty about finding transport to such centres. There may be some difficulty getting from Limerick to Ballina because the last Coalition Government did away with the railway service to Claremorris. A section of the Department of Agriculture is based in Castlebar and the farming community must travel there frequently because the headage grant and beef subsidy schemes are administered from that centre. Those schemes involve personal contact by the farming community with the officials, but I have not heard farmers say it is any more difficult for them to travel from, for instance, Clare to Castlebar than it is for them to go to Dublin. Accessibility is not a problem in spite of what the Minister has said. Has the Minister ever heard of any difficulties in the south of England due to the fact that the entire Department of Social Welfare is located in Newcastle-upon-Tyne?

The Minister also drew attention to the fact that decentralisation would involve new sewerage and water schemes costing a lot of money. I have some knowledge of the areas where water and sewerage schemes are required, having served in the Department of the Environment, and I can tell the House that a number of the areas mentioned are adequately serviced. A new scheme has been completed in my town and there is a new one under construction in Ballina. I have not heard of any difficulty in Killarney other than that there was a need for a treatment works, but that got under way during my term of office. I cannot recall hearing that Galway has a problem. In my opinion there would not be any great initial cost in supplying the services required for decentralisation. We are all aware that the greatest demand for such services exists in Dublin. Dublin could spend the entire allocation for water, sewerage and housing if it was made available because the demand is so great and decentralisation would surely ease that problem.

The site for the Ennis offices was purchased at a cost of £178,000 and the contact has been signed, but there it rests. There is no problem about water and sewerage in that town. The proposal in relation to that town is being deferred pending a review. That is one of many schemes being reviewed. The Government are also reviewing two schemes which were approved by the last Government, the Ballyforan turf burning generating station and the Arigna generating station. The Minister for Finance told us last night that there was a huge gap between our capacity to generate electricity here and what we use. He said that of the 100 per cent capacity we only utilise 60 per cent. That may be true but the Minister should remember that Deputy O'Malley was talking about using our native resources. It is the policy of the EEC that we should get away from our dependence on oil and that is why the last Government proposed doing by establishing a turf burning station in Ballyforan and a second coal-burning station in Arigna. Those projects have been hit on the head; but of course we should not forget that they are located in the West of Ireland, which is no-man's-land as far as the Government are concerned. Many of the suggested locations for decentralisation are in the west but, of course, the west has only one Minister, the Minister for the Gaeltacht and we do have a Minister of State in north Kerry. It is easy to understand why decentralisation has been knocked and why Ballyforan and Arigna have been knocked. They have been knocked because of their location, an area that is of no interest to the Government.

Mr. G. Birmingham

I have listened with some interest to the contribution of the last speaker and learned a good deal. In particular, my political geography has been extended because I was unaware of the fact that the constituencies of Sligo-Leitrim and Donegal had some how or other moved to the east coast or that, alternatively, the Ministers of State who represent those constituencies had forfeited their citizenship of Connacht and Ulster. I will not be deflected into an examination at this stage of the political geography that has been raised by the last speaker. However, his ending was interesting because it seemed to me that that focused attention on what was the real motivation behind tabling the motion. Of course it is appropriate that Dáil Éireann should examine the fundamentals of our economic policies and it is appropriate that we should examine our attitude to decentralisation, why we want to decentralise, to where and at what speed but I suggest that that was not the motivation that led to the tabling of this motion. I suggest the motion was tabled for one reason only, to be mischievious and political and to seek to embarrass the Government.

Mr. Barrett

(Clare): We have a right to table such a motion.

Mr. G. Birmingham

I do not challenge that right but it is interesting that there is no denial of the motivation, simply an assertion that it is a right of the Opposition. One would have thought that an Opposition would have found more useful ways to embarrass the Government and in doing so would focus attention on matters of public concern.

Mr. Flor Crowley

Is the Deputy a schoolmaster by any chance because he sounds like a schoolmaster giving us a lecture?

Mr. G. Birmingham

This is an attempt to be political. Deputy Flor Crowley has had enough problems in the House in the last few weeks.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Crowley should not behave like a bad pupil.

Mr. G. Birmingham

The history of this so-called decentralisation project and commitment of the Fianna Fáil Party was outlined last night by Deputy O'Malley in introducing the debate. Deputy O'Malley has maintained a discreet silence on debates on the Government's economic policies in the last few months but now he found it possible to drape himself in the Limerick colours to move the motion. Perhaps the history of the project is covered by his first sentence which was to the effect that on 16 February 1980 the then Taoiseach, Deputy Haughey, in his presidential address to the Fianna Fáil Ard-Fheis announced that the Government would give effect to their decision to implement what was described as a comprehensive policy on decentralisation.

That was hardly the forum for the introduction of a serious and planned commitment to decentralisation. Rather it was an announcement to bring the warriors of destiny to their feet at the Ard-Fheis. If one looks a little further at the details of the project, in so far as they are available to us, one cannot help but notice the number of marginal constituencies or at least ones that were perceived to be marginal, that were to benefit. I am sure that even Deputy Barrett's political geography will accord with mine on this point. Let us take, for instance, Limerick which was a marginal five-seater but which as a result of the activities of Deputies O'Donnell and Noonan is no longer marginal. Again, there is the town of Ennis where Fianna Fáil defended successfully to the end their three out of four seats.

Mr. Smith

Surely Clare cannot be regarded as marginal.

Mr. G. Birmingham

It was among the most marginal in the last election. Fianna Fáil hung on by the skin of their teeth but they will not be able to hang on there in the future.

Mr. Smith

We won three out of four seats.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Chair would remind Deputy Birmingham that if he continues to indulge in provocative political point-making he must take the consequences.

Mr. G. Birmingham

A commitment to decentralise is fine so long as we are clear about what the motivation for such commitment is. If the objective is to bring the point of decision-making closer to people and to increase their access to the point of Government that is fine, but if what is put before us is a badly thought out decision to announce a Government policy in the run-up to a general election in the belief that one party may gain from the announcement, is it not right and proper that a new Government should examine the consequences of that announcement?

Of course there is a need to decentralise. We know very well that part of Dublin city is top heavy with office blocks. Anybody going into the Dublin 4 or 6 districts cannot be in any doubt about that but we must have decentralisation only on the basis that it provides a better service for people, allows them to conduct their business more expeditiously, and ensures that their problems are attended to in greater detail. It is for that reason that this Government are committed to decentralisation but if that objective is to be fulfilled it is essential that the commitment to decentralisation must be a considered one and that the locations to which offices are to be transferred be examined in detail.

In all this talk of decentralisation little reference has been made to the situation in this city in which there is an abundance of office space in the fashionable Dublin 4 and 6 districts while across the Liffey in the Nos. 3 and 5 districts office blocks are a rarity. The reality is that if what is intended is that the Dáil should consider where it stands in relation to this question of decentralisation, that the Dáil should express its approval of decentralisation and that this House should say to the Government this is what we want to see happen and, accordingly, you must move in that direction, it should have no hesitation in accepting the amendment moved by the Minister for Finance. That amendment reads:

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

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

It is not without interest that Deputy O'Malley at the beginning of his speech promised to parse and analyse that amendment but that he has not done so. I suggest the reason for that is that if one were to examine the amendment one would find in it a clear and unequivocal commitment to decentralisation, a commitment that this Government will follow through.

Mr. Conaghan

Fianna Fáil did not intend to be in any way provocative in putting down this motion and neither was their declared commitment to decentralisation intended to be in any way an election gimmick. However, I was not surprised at the attitude taken by the Government in relation to this issue. When question in this regard were put to the Minister he took them together and answered in such a way as to indicate that this was another part of a programme that had been initiated but which, too, was to be shelved.

I would remind the last speaker that I come from a constituency which is being affected by the halt in the decentralisation of Government Departments. I am sure that when the idea was first mooted, all Deputies here but particularly those from the western seaboard constituencies welcomed it and saw in the concept someseate thing that would be of benefit to local communities. No doubt representations were made from all sides of the House in respect of the various areas. I expect that many of the Government Deputies are as disappointed as we are because of the halt in the programme. At the time the programme was announced I was a member of the National Development Organisation and we pushed for a location in Donegal. We sought the support of the various agencies in the constituency, including the private sector. Having regard to the guidelines concerning the selection of the various areas we realised that the only location in our county which would have any chance of being chosen was Letterkenny.

The move towards decentralisation was a move in the direction of regional development but to hear speakers on the other side talk of the implications of decentralisation makes little sense. We should bear in mind that if regional development is to mean anything it should be tackled vigorously and implemented. In this city dwell 30 per cent of the entire population. I do not think there is any other capital city in the world which accommodates such a high proportion of its entire population. In regard to office employment, only 1.5 per cent of the entire employment in my county was of that nature according to the 1966 census but I am sure that the figure is even less now. In the eastern region 59 per cent of the workforce are in office employment. There are many people employed in the public sector in Dublin, especially people from my constituency, who wish to get back to their own regions. Their financial resources are strained living and working in Dublin.

Regional development will bring closer to the people facilities to help them to carry on their daily work. When we see a project, which was initiated and £2 million spent on it by the previous Government — £1.6 million on design and architectural work and £1.5 million on sites — now being sent for review, this clearly spells out for me that the Government feel the civil service is the area they must put pressure on and they must curb everything in the civil service. The civil service has grown over the years and needs to grow more because we are involved in many ways through Government regulations and procedures and also through our EEC membership. It is important to bring the civil service closer to the people.

The Public Service Advisory Council in report No. 7 for the year ended 31 October 1980, in pages 10 and 11 said:

The Council has noted with special interest the references to decentralisation in the report of the Department of the Public Service and the opportunity was availed of to discuss this question in the course of the interviews which we had with heads of Departments and with staff unions. An important advantage of the decentralisation already accomplished and at present in prospect is, of course, the contribution which can be made to regional development by the dispersal of service-type employment. However, decentralisation also provides an opportunity for many civil servants to work in or near their own home towns. We understand that there are long lists of applicants for the limited number of vacancies which arise in provincial centres at present and the Council would hope that working in close proximity to home would have favourable effects on morale (and consequently efficiency) in clerical grades particularly. The sections in Government Departments selected for decentralisation are, it is understood, largely self-contained so that, given adequate communications, there should be minimal disruption once the transfers have actually taken place.

However, it is evident to us from our discussions with heads of Departments that the smooth achievements of the transfers will be a sizeable and complex task, posing a considerable challenge for management in the Departments affected. Adequate communications, especially telephone and (if they arise) computer linkages, will be crucial to the success of the programme. However, in view of the recent and prospective achievements in the extension and improvement of the national communications network, the Council would expect that no undue difficulties should arise on this score.

There was a very favourable response for the many people who would be involved in moving to the various centres. The old argument has always been that the facilities were not in the rural areas to accommodate any State Departments. The constituency I represent for many years suffered those drawbacks but during the four years of the previous Government a major breakthrough took place in County Donegal. Telecommunications there will be fully automated within the next few years. Fianna Fáil initiated an extensive breakthrough on the industrial front. We had the extension to our general hospital, we had the AnCO centre for Letterkenny mooted and we had the decentralisation of offices for the Department of Social Welfare. Unfortunately, when there was a change of Government and I sought to pursue the matters mentioned, I found that no progress apparently will be made.

I would remind the Government that for many years the emphasis has been for development in the eastern part of the country. Unfortunately the same pattern prevailed in the Six Counties, where no development west of the Bann was allowed to take place. Fianna Fáil believed that that attitude should change and set out on a course whereby regional development would take place in a meaningful way. It is unfortunate, when that commitment was given and the work was in train by the previous Government, that we have now to have another review. There are many things the country needs but I do not think it needs reviews on any of the matters the Government are seeking reviews on. It has been well argued in the House in relation to this project that the reasons for a continuation of this programme are to be found in the areas concerned.

I ask the Government to forget about a review, because that is only a ploy to shelve this programme. Progress will be impeded and many areas where the centres were to be set up will be deprived of them. It will mean that many of the public sector employees working in Dublin who were waiting for the day when they could move back to their own areas will now have to wait for another five or six years before that happens. The attitude of this Government seems to be to revert back to the policy of developing the east coast, crowding out Dublin, forgetting about the west and the north, letting them sit out on a limb. I do not think the people of the west or the people of the constituency I represent will give any credit to the Government for their actions, which make it necessary to bring this motion before the House to highlight the contempt the Government have for the development of rural Ireland.

I represent one of the most rural constituencies in the country and we are now denied the right to have what has been given to us by the previous Government. The people in that constituency will not forget that when they get the opportunity. I wish to put on the record my thanks to the previous Taoiseach, who enthusiastically pursued regional development, and to Deputy O'Malley who was Minister for Industry and Commerce and his vigorous efforts to start industrial development in that region. I wish to thank also the then Minister of State, Deputy Calleary, who gave the necessary sanction for that region in Donegal. A site is now available and the contract documents are ready for signature if the Minister will allow the work to be done.

Amendment put.

The Dáil divided: Tá, 79; Níl, 75.

Tá

• Allen, Bernard.
• Barrett, Seán.
• Barry, Myra.
• Birmingham, George.
• Boland, John.
• Bruton, John.
• Burke, Dick.
• Burke, Liam.
• Byrne, Hugh. (Dublin North-West).
• Collins, Edward.
• Conlon, John F.
• Connaughton, Paul.
• Connor, John.
• Cooney, Patrick M.
• Corish, Brendan.
• Cosgrave, Liam T.
• Cosgrave, Michael J.
• Coveney, Hugh.
• Crowley, Frank.
• D'Arcy, Michael J.
• Deasy, Martin A.
• Desmond, Barry.
• Desmond, Eileen.
• Donnellan, John F.
• Dukes, Alan M.
• Durkan, Bernard J.
• Enright, Thomas W.
• Farrelly, John V.
• Fennell, Nuala.
• FitzGerald, Garret.
• Fitzpatrick, Tom. (Cavan-Monaghan).
• Flaherty, Mary.
• Flanagan, Oliver J.
• Fleming, Brian.
• Glenn, Alice.
• Governey, Desmond.
• Griffin, Brendan.
• Harte, Patrick D.
• Hegarty, Paddy.
• Barry, Peter.
• Begley, Michael.
• Bermingham, Joseph.
• Higgins, Michael I).
• Kavanagh, Liam.
• Keating, Michael.
• Kelly, John.
• Kemmy, Jim.
• Kenny, Enda.
• L'Estrange, Gerry.
• McCartin, John J.
• McMahon, Larry.
• Markey, Bernard.
• Mitchell, Gay.
• Mitchell, Jim.
• Molony, David.
• Moynihan, Michael.
• Nealon, Ted.
• Noonan, Michael. (Limerick East).
• O'Brien, Fergus.
• O'Brien, William.
• O'Donnell, Tom.
• O'Keeffe, Jim.
• O'Leary, Michael.
• O'Sullivan, Toddy.
• O'Toole, Paddy.
• Owen, Nora.
• Pattison, Séamus.
• Ryan, John J.
• Ryan, Richie.
• Shatter, Alan.
• Sheehan, Patrick J.
• Spring, Dick.
• Taylor, Madeleine.
• Taylor, Mervyn.
• Timmins, Godfrey.
• Treacy, Seán.
• Tully, James.
• White, James.
• Yates, Ivan.

Níl

• Acheson, Carrie.
• Ahern, Bertie.
• Allen, Lorcan.
• Andrews, David.
• Andrews, Niall.
• Aylward, Liam.
• Barrett, Sylvester.
• Brady, Gerard.
• Brady, Vincent.
• Brennan, Paudge.
• Brennan, Seamus.
• Briscoe, Ben.
• Burke, Raphael P.
• Byrne, Hugh. (Wexford).
• Callanan, John.
• Clohessy, Peadar.
• Colley, George.
• Collins, Gerard.
• Conaghan, Hugh.
• Connolly, Gerard.
• Coughlan, Clement.
• Cowen, Bernard.
• Crowley, Flor.
• Daly, Brendan.
• Doherty, Seán.
• Loughnane, William.
• Lyons, Denis.
• McCarthy, Seán.
• McCreevy, Charlie.
• McEllistrim, Thomas.
• MacSharry, Ray.
• Meaney, Tom.
• Molloy, Robert.
• Moore, Seán.
• Morley, P. J.
• Murphy, Ciarán P.
• Nolan, Tom.
• Ellis, John.
• Fahey, Jackie.
• Faulkner, Pádraig.
• Filgate, Eddie.
• Fitzgerald, Gene.
• Fitzgerald, Liam.
• Fitzpatrick, Tom (Dublin South-Central).
• Fitzsimons, Jim.
• Flynn, Pádraig.
• Foley, Denis.
• French, Seán.
• Gallagher, Denis.
• Gallagher, Pat Cope.
• Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
• Harney, Mary.
• Haughey, Charles J.
• Hyland, Liam.
• Joyce, Carey.
• Keegan, Seán.
• Kenneally, William.
• Killilea, Mark.
• Kitt, Michael P.
• Lemass, Eileen.
• Lenihan, Brian.
• Leyden, Terry.
• Noonan, Michael J. (Limerick West).
• O'Donoghue, Martin.
• O'Hanlon, Rory.
• O'Malley, Desmond.
• Power, Paddy.
• Reynolds, Albert.
• Sherlock, Joe.
• Smith, Michael.
• Tunney, Jim.
• Walsh, Seán.
• Wilson, John P.
• Woods, Michael J.
• Wyse, Pearse.

Tellers: Tá, Deputies F. O'Brien and Mervyn Taylor; Níl, Deputies Moore and Briscoe.

Amendment declared carried.

Motion, as amended, agreed to.