Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 9 Dec 2003

Vol. 576 No. 5

Leaders' Questions.

Does the Taoiseach agree that the prime motivation for the announcement on decentralisation last week was the political interest of his party to avoid decimation at the local elections next year and that the programme has been heavily influenced by political considerations? Clearly, having a Minister in or adjacent to a constituency has meant more civil servants in the raffle for the public service. Of the eight Departments to be decentralised, five are either in or close to Minister's constituencies and only one quarter of the posts will go to towns mentioned in the national spatial strategy.

Given that the Minister of State at the Department of Finance, Deputy Parlon, has openly boasted that this was heavily influenced by political considerations and his involvement was central to the announcement of the transfer of civil servants to his constituency, does the Taoiseach consider that the Minister of State, for one, is clearly in breach of paragraph 1.4 of the Public Office Commission's code of conduct for Ministers and Ministers of State?

I do not agree with the Deputy. As Minister for Finance, I was actively involved in the decentralisation in the 1990s of approximately 4,500 public servants to various centres throughout the country. This has worked extremely well. In 1999 the Government stated that, due to the population growth in the greater Dublin region – 2 million inhabitants were enumerated there in the previous census – we would have a further period of decentralisation. A committee has worked on this since. We said we would wait until the national spatial strategy was launched before completing the work. We have done so and identified 53 locations in 25 counties for the decentralisation of 10,300 people. This is in keeping with previous decentralisation programmes. The schemes have been set out and the implementation group will hold its first meeting next week.

While Deputy Kenny said that the locations to which offices are being decentralised are either in or near Minister's constituencies, Ireland is a small country and it is to be expected that locations could be seen as being near certain places. It is not unlikely that they would be. I consider Mayo as being near Dublin. I noted over the weekend that many Opposition Members claimed they had an influence in this as well. We seem to have a great competition in claiming who has the most influence.

(Interruptions).

Who is in Government?

Allow the Taoiseach speak without interruption, please.

I suppose that as Taoiseach I should claim full credit.

The Taoiseach did not answer my question. I asked him if the Minister of State, Deputy Parlon, who has galloped in here from Parlon country, is in breach of paragraph 1.4 of the code of conduct for office holders. This paragraph states clearly that ethical behaviour requires Ministers to take decisions in the national interest over and above personal and parliamentary interests. The Minister of State, Deputy Parlon, said that no other public representative in the Laoighis-Offaly constituency, including the Minister for Foreign Affairs, had done anything for the people of that constituency over the years and that he was the great person to sort out their problems. This reminds me of the words of that great Mayo writer, Paul Durcan. When he wrote about the national spatial strategy, he said the Garden of Eden will be transferred from the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government to the Department of Arts, Sport and Tourism under its new Minister, Condoleezza Rice.

The criteria and analysis used in this non-political exercise, under the Taoiseach's direction, meant that 53 towns out of 130 were entitled to rejoice somewhat at the initial announcement, which was generally supported throughout the country. However, trust in politics is lost when cynicism such as we have witnessed creeps in.

Will the Taoiseach publish the analysis and criteria used in the selection of the 53 towns so people in Boyle, for instance, can understand why they were not considered suitable for an allocation of some element of the public service? The Taoiseach said on the 9 o'clock news that these criteria were based on discussions that had been taking place for three years. Does he consider that the Minister of State, Deputy Parlon, is clearly in breach of paragraph 1.4 of the code of conduct for office holders?

The criteria and what the Government was doing in respect of decentralisation and balanced regional development are published in documentation pertaining to our European effort of a few years ago, which was to try to divide the country on a regional basis, and the national spatial strategy.

On a serious note—

That is not an answer to the question that was asked.

Deputy Kenny is mistaken in that he is just thinking in terms of individual locations. The attempt is to have a regional spread and to try to locate Departments and agencies in a cluster. One of the general objections of public servants to decentralisation was that enormous difficulties would arise if it were carried out in a haphazard way, whereby people could not be promoted within a region. In the considerable consultation that took place in recent years, the public servants made this point validly and expressed it at their conferences in the four years since the Government launched its decentralisation programme. A serious point that must be made is that there is now regional balance, and it has been achieved in a proper manner.

On Deputy Kenny's question on the statements of Deputy Parlon or other Deputies—

He is an office holder.

Allow the Taoiseach.

A question has been tabled to the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources, Deputy Dermot Ahern, by a Fine Gael Member from the same constituency which castigates the Minister because he did not transfer his Department to that constituency.

I did even better. I located my previous Department there.

The Minister of State, Deputy Parlon, is an office holder.

(Interruptions).

The Taoiseach, without interruption.

Deputy Kenny and I have been Members of the House for long enough to know that there is a code of ethics whereby those who have been elected to the House try to remain elected. That is the code of ethics in this House.

(Interruptions).

Is that in published form?

To hell with freedom of information.

They claim everything. Opposition Members issued statements some days ago stating that their role in presenting the cases to Ministers visiting their constituencies is what turned the issue around. Fair play to them.

(Interruptions).

The Minister of State, Deputy Parlon, is also entitled to work for his constituency. What else would he be doing except working for it?

Leaflet No. 1.

Is the Taoiseach satisfied that the quality, coherence and efficiency of Government will not be impacted upon as a result of the announcement on decentralisation in the budget? Does he not think it is fair to say that the announcement was to steer attention away from the fact that 52% of all taxpayers will now pay at the highest rate of tax and that it will cost them €600 on average?

I ask the Taoiseach if he recognises the following quote by the Minister for Finance, Deputy McCreevy, from a reply to a parliamentary question dated 12 November 2002:

As I have said on many occasions of late, there is a wide range of important issues that must be taken into consideration before a final decision is taken on the matter. It is vital that all involved are consulted, be they staff concerned about their futures or departmental managements concerned about the delivery of the public services for which they have responsibility.

Why was there no consultation in line with the Minister for Finance's commitment to the Dáil in this reply to a parliamentary question?

Can the Taoiseach help me reconcile the Tánaiste's statement of 2 January 2002 on previous decentralisation by three Ministers? She insisted that the exercise should not generate a repeat of the earlier behaviour of three Fianna Fáil Ministers who had transferred sections of their Departments to their constituencies. Adding to the tensions between the coalition partners, the Progressive Democrats Minister of State, Deputy O'Donnell, criticised it as "the worst kind of bogman politics".

(Interruptions).

Allow Deputy Rabbitte without interruption, please.

The Tánaiste insisted that decentralisation would have to be achieved in a meaningful and efficient way rather than by using a scatter-gun approach around the country. Does the Taoiseach agree with her? Does he recall when she objected to the Minister for Finance, Deputy McCreevy, inviting his colleagues to bid for the civil servants for their constituencies? What does the Taoiseach think of the Progressive Democrats Minister, Deputy Parlon, the first at the hireling fair who gives the impression he will drive the tractor up to Dublin and help the civil servants with the removals himself? If this is the role of the Progressive Democrats, why does it not decentralise to Mount Street and be done with it?

Ours is not a redundant party, unlike the Labour Party.

We are not like Deputy Rabbitte, who has already done that.

Deputy Rabbitte should note that part of our remit is to try to decentralise to large and appropriate towns in 53 locations.

Thomastown.

The plan was carefully balanced on the basis that there would be a cluster of decentralised bodies within regions, each in close proximity to each other.

On Deputy Rabbitte's question, I do not believe the efficiency of Government will suffer. I remember the arguments made when the then Department of Social Welfare was to move to Sligo and the Revenue Commissioners to Tipperary. There are many arguments to show that these moves have been effective. Given that multinational companies in the west can deal with their parent companies in various continents, we should have no difficulty if the decentralised bodies are in close proximity. My experience indicates that people who are stuck in offices in the city centre – some of which are not very appropriate – and who are on top of each other all the time might be much better off and much better tempered if they were based in regional locations.

Set me free.

I see no difficulty with this. I assure Deputy Rabbitte that there is nothing to be read into the fact that decentralisation was part of the budget. The one unfortunate issue that has arisen in the past week regarding decentralisation is that it has in some ways concealed the fact that the budget—

The Taoiseach can say that again.

If the Labour Party were really interested in the marginalised, it would note that 30% of the less well-off have enjoyed increases from almost 5.7% to 7%.

Ray Burke—

Deputy Michael D. Higgins should be proud about this. I know he is annoyed about it. The top 30%—

I am not. I know language when I hear it.

—receive increases of only 0.04% to 0.07%. Moreover, the welfare increases in this budget and even in those of more difficult times have been very helpful. Instead of people barely getting what they needed to maintain their standard of living, 400,000 people will get three times the rate of inflation.

It is 21 cent a day.

These are the kinds of measures for which Members should have applauded the Minister for Finance, but unfortunately they did not get enough coverage. I know Deputy Higgins is pleased about that—

—but these are real and socially progressive policies.

If children had four legs they could be—

Sorry, Deputy Higgins. These are Leaders' Questions. I have called the leader of your party to ask a supplementary question and out of courtesy to him I would ask you to allow him to ask it without interruption.

I am not sure what the Taoiseach means by all those civil servants on top of each other. Clearly more fun goes on in the Civil Service than I was aware of.

Is the Taoiseach satisfied that the quality of governance will not be affected? Does he genuinely believe the business of Government can be done by e-mail? Is it the case, as has been suggested by a former Taoiseach, that, for example, civil servants participate in no less than 300 interdepartmental committees on behalf of their Ministers? Is the Taoiseach saying he intends to stick with the budget day commitment to the implementation of this package, as it has been rolled out, within three years? Would it not have been more rational and reasonable to have truly engaged in the consultation promised by the Minister for Finance and to have compiled a league table of locations in the country consistent with the national spatial strategy? That table could have been consistent with a range of socio-economic factors, such as the availability of infrastructure, and self-contained, autonomous units of Government might be transferred to those areas.

This is the scatter-gun approach the Tánaiste claimed to fear and the hireling fair which repulsed her before the election. Is the Taoiseach saying now, on mature reflection and having got what he can to deflect from what was otherwise a very bad budget, that he will persist in implementing this against the public interest?

The efficiency of governance will not be affected in any way. Moving a large core of Departments out to regional locations is good for them and it will be better for the staff in terms of quality of life and opportunities. It will make for better balanced development in the country. With modern technology I do not see problems arising – we are not just talking about e-mails. Meetings can take place in locations all over the world without everyone having to be in the one room. If those days were ever relevant they are long out of date. There are no difficulties with these issues.

The consultation and examination carried out by the Minister and the committee which dealt with this were long enough. As Deputy Rabbitte knows, people will go on forever about these issues. Everyone wanted decentralisation in their areas, but it is not possible to cover all 130 or 140 locations seeking decentralisation. That would be a scatter-gun approach. Only one third of those locations will be involved but they will be good locations.

I agree with Deputy Rabbitte on some of the better issues in the budget were overlooked but perhaps they will be brought to light. The entry point to taxation for a single PAYE worker was €97 per week a few years ago but after this budget it is now €247 per week, an increase of over 150%. Unfortunately, some of these matters have been hidden. The proportion of income tax yield from those with earnings at and under the average industrial wage is projected to be about 6%. The equivalent figure was only 14%. Some of these matters should be in the public domain.

Even when the Taoiseach is not asked a question he reads the note.

I do not want to ask the Taoiseach questions about the former Minister, Mr. Ray Burke, because that matter is before the courts, but I want to focus on the Taoiseach's track record. After all, he castigated the Opposition for hounding an honourable man out of office so it is important that he go back to last week in the Dáil when we asked him about a meeting he had with the head of Royal Dutch Shell. He told us, very interestingly, that he has had "a fair few meetings over the years that might border on the unethical, but I am not guilty of it in this case." The interesting question, which we did not have an opportunity to ask at the time, is what exactly does the Taoiseach regard as unethical. He told us that the code of ethics here is that once you are elected to Dáil Éireann you stay in Dáil Éireann.

Beyond that, has he attended any other meetings that might be considered unethical? Did any of them involve, for example, Mr. Gilmartin? Did any of them involve the Sweepstakes? We saw a recent "Prime Time" programme on the Sweepstakes which went back to the 1970s and 1980s. Is it not strange that any candidate could call to the offices of the Sweepstakes in Ballsbridge and ask for his or her election deposit? I know times have changed, but the Taoiseach was a Deputy for nine years before the Sweepstakes ended and he received the annual report year after year, as did every Deputy. Did he ever suspect at the time that there was anything unethical about its operation? Can the Taoiseach look me in the eye and tell me that after he became Minister in 1987 there was no procurement project in which he was involved that was not clean and above board? It is important we know that.

I will not remind Deputy Sargent of some of the nice things he said about people when they were appointed Ministers. I will not get into that because these matters are before the courts. I recall the day I spoke about Shell and I will tell the Deputy what I was referring to. When people want to invest in and bring employment to this country, they want to know if there is political interest and if the country is stable—

The Taoiseach told us that. I raised another matter.

The Deputy asked me a question and I want to tell him not just about that meeting but others. I would always take an interest in these matters and meet people. The best Governments all over the world, with the highest ethical standards, do that.

As regards the issues I referred to which bordered on the unethical, in my involvement in Northern Ireland I sometimes felt less than comfortable meeting people who had been involved at first hand in acts which make me feel uncomfortable. However, in the interests of the peace process I continued. That is what I meant that day. If the Deputy wants me to spell that out I can do so, but I would rather not.

I got a limited answer so I take it that if the Taoiseach had more time he would have told me more about the 1970s and 1980s, during his time as Minister for Labour and so on. It is important we have a clear understanding of the Taoiseach's approach to corruption. We had an exchange in the Dáil in which the Taoiseach tried to put us in a league – he said there are cases involving trillions and that we are not in that league, that there is a way to deal with this and that it cannot go on forever.

I want to be clear on where the Taoiseach stands on this issue. The Berlin-based Transparency International group has said that Ireland is more corrupt than 17 other countries. Of course, most other countries that are corrupt are poorer countries in the developing world. That league was compiled before the tribunals report so we do not know what the future holds in that regard.

Is it not time that clear political leadership is given to the ending of corruption, not just in terms of statements but of removing rezoning windfall profits, reforming the planning Acts, giving more resources to the EPA, given the amount of illegal dumping, and allocating more resources to the Garda, given the promise of an extra 2,000 gardaí? Are these not matters that must be seen in action rather than in words?

I believe in democracy, the rule of law, human rights, the suppression of terrorism and good governance. I do not think Ireland is a corrupt country.

Does the Taoiseach believe in tribunals?

Issues must be investigated but compliance with tax, welfare and justice legislation in Ireland is high. We are nowhere near the league of countries considered to be corrupt. We are not in the same zone and the fact that former office holders and other people in society are dealt with under legislation shows how fair and honest is this country. The Deputy's line is not right.

It is not my line.

With regard to my political life, I worked in the House at a time when there was almost 20% unemployment. I have always worked to find ways of investment. One does not grow jobs on trees; one attracts foreign direct investment.

They probably grow on trees.

Jobs are created in an up front way and they are not driven out. We should be proud of what we have achieved in creating wealth and jobs and solving issues.

The Taoiseach could drive jobs in here.

Hear, hear.

Barr
Roinn