Regional Development: Motion.

Dr. Mansergh

I move:

That Seanad Éireann——

—recognises that each and every region must have, and must be encouraged to have, a role in sustaining our national prosperity and progress and believes that balanced regional development is essential in this regard;

—congratulates the Government for the commitment it continues to show in implementing the national development plan and bringing forward the national spatial strategy;

—welcomes the announcement made by the Minister for Finance in budget 2004 of the Government's decentralisation programme, which amounts to one of the biggest changes and reforms in the history of the State, involving over 10,000 public servants moving out of Dublin to 53 centres in 25 counties around the country;

—accepts that the locations which have been selected take full account of the national spatial strategy, the existence of good transport links — by road, rail and-or air — and the location of existing decentralised offices;

—notes that, for the first time ever, decentralisation will involve the transfer of complete Departments — including their Ministers and senior management — to provincial locations with a total of eight Departments and the Office of Public Works moving their headquarters from Dublin to provincial locations;

—acknowledges all Departments and Offices will be participating in the programme, that the programme will be implemented through the transfer of staff on a voluntary basis and that there will be no redundancies and, as on previous occasions, the payment of removal or relocation expenses will not arise;

—fully supports this radical decentralisation programme as good for Dublin, good for the rest of the country and a statement of confidence in provincial Ireland while also affirming that the programme will make better use of our resources, of our infrastructure and especially of our most valuable resource of all — our people;

—maintains too that decentralisation offers considerable benefits for the Departments involved, the communities to which they will be relocated, the staff that will transfer and the country as a whole;

—emphasises that the parties in Government have a proud record in the delivery of decentralisation and can take credit for the fact the thousands of civil servants are already working and living around the country; and

—supports fully the establishment of an implementation committee to drive forward implementation of the current programme with the chair of the committee reporting to a Cabinet sub-committee.

I wish to share my time with Senator Daly.

An Cathaoirleach

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Dr. Mansergh

The decentralisation programme, announced in December's budget, was tremendously welcome in towns across Ireland. It gave a great morale boost in my home town of Tipperary. I have never seen the people in such good mood as I saw them in the days following the decision. The various local bodies are busy putting together sites which they have been invited to send to the OPW. They are anxious to move ahead as fast as possible. If there was any disappointment in Tipperary, it was that Tipperary town's twin for this purpose, Carrick-on-Suir, was not included. However, there are some unallocated jobs, particularly in the information technology sector, related to that part of the south-east. I press the Minister and the Government to do what they can because Carrick-on-Suir needs decentralisation as badly as Tipperary town.

While many of the towns chosen are contrary to those stated in the Fine Gael amendment, which are hubs or gateways in the national spatial strategy, not all of them are. Some of them are towns which have difficulty attracting replacement industry and which do not want to become dormitory towns. The national spatial strategy does not discuss in detail the subject of decentralisation. I am not sure it even specifically mentions it. Do I understand from the Fine Gael amendment to the motion that any town which is not a hub or gateway should not have been chosen for decentralisation? Was Senator Ulick Burke consulted about it, given the fact that the road haulage section and the National Safety Council is going to Loughrea because that is not a hub or gateway? Is Senator Finucane happy with the Fine Gael amendment, given that 50 Revenue staff are going to Newcastle West which is not a hub or gateway? Is the chairman of the Fine Gael Parliamentary Party happy, given that he claimed the credit more or less exclusively for himself for the 200 jobs going to Tipperary? The Fine Gael Party should consider amending its amendment.

This is not only good for the towns chosen, but it is also good for Dublin. Anyone who travels to and from Dublin sees the queues which begin at Kill every morning during rush hour and continue for a couple of hours. It is intolerable. This is about relieving gross pressure on Dublin, which is a major element of the national spatial strategy. Decentralisation is fully in line with the national spatial strategy.

It is also good for public administration and public servants. They must administer the country as a whole, like gardaí. It will not do them any harm to have direct experience of places other than Dublin during their careers as civil servants. Far from being bad for public administration, it will be exceptionally good for it. One has only to consider the French administration system, which is one of the finest in the world. Its staff members are sent off as prefects, and they go to prefectures in different parts of the country. It is thoroughly good for public administration. It may help those who move around and are flexible to qualify for the most senior jobs in due course.

I am disappointed by the Labour Party's attitude to this issue. I listened carefully to the leader of the Labour Party on Sunday, 24 January. He called it a daft idea which would not work. He said it would be immensely expensive and counter-productive in terms of Government effectiveness and it would demoralise civil servants. He also said it would be bad for Government. The Labour Party says it will be the major force driving the next Government.

Mr. McCarthy

We will be.

Dr. Mansergh

Senator Higgins may have a different view on that. Deputy Rabbitte rubbished decentralisation.

Mr. McCarthy

That is nonsense.

Dr. Mansergh

The Senator was not here when I outlined what Deputy Rabbitte said. I will, therefore, repeat it. He said it was a daft idea which would not work and that it would be immensely expensive.

Mr. McCarthy

That is nonsense.

An Cathaoirleach

Order, please.

Dr. Mansergh

I was disappointed that he rubbished it. People will want to know what the attitude of an alternative Government is to decentralisation. Is it the rubbishing attitude of Deputy Rabbitte?

Mr. McCarthy

That is rubbish.

Dr. Mansergh

What is the attitude of the Fine Gael Party to Deputy Rabbitte? I heard someone say it was the worst interview he had given since he became party leader. We must remember that Fine Gael and Labour have a bad record on decentralisation.

Mr. McCarthy

We have a good record in the opinion polls.

Dr. Mansergh

They cancelled it in 1981 and 1982. The only party which has implemented a decentralisation programme is Fianna Fáil. The Labour Party has to prove its ——

Mr. McCarthy

Four months before the election.

Dr. Mansergh

There is a big question mark because the people will want to know the Labour Party's intentions. Was Deputy Rabbitte's statement serious or was it electioneering? The Labour Party must clarify its attitude because the people support decentralisation. It will work extremely well. I look forward to seeing the bones of unity between the Labour Party and Fine Gael contributors to this debate.

Mr. Daly

I second the motion. I thank Senator Mansergh for affording me the opportunity to speak on this issue. I congratulate the Government on taking this initiative which was promised a few years ago and which, because of the amount of work involved, took a long time to prepare and to finally unfold. I thank the Department officials, particularly those in the Department of Finance, who had direct responsibility for much of the preparation and who put in an enormous amount of work and effort over a number of years.

In deciding on this relocation some years ago, the Government made a very wise and forward-looking decision. When it was first mooted it created considerable interest in the local communities, which organised themselves to put forward their case. In particular Kilrush Urban District Council spearheaded a campaign involving chambers of commerce and others. It is very frustrating for them to hear criticism of the decentralisation programme from the Labour Party, in particular, and Fine Gael. Huge work was put into preparing these cases and identifying locations for offices and the people for those offices.

One of the most heartbreaking scenes in west Clare over 20 or 30 years has been the sight of busses lined up in the square in Kilrush to bring young people to Dublin to work on Sunday evenings. They then have to traipse all the way back down the following weekend. I am sure Senator Higgins has seen the same thing every week in Mayo. Due to advances in technology most of the work of such people can be done in any location around the country. This was proven in the Kilrush case where a detailed set of proposals was made to the Department. When it was felt it might be necessary to have a larger number involved to facilitate the transfer of civil servants to the west, they linked up with Newcastle West and Listowel.

Deputy Deenihan, who represents Kerry North, was very disappointed by the Fine Gael response. Deputy John Bruton, as Minister for Finance, cancelled the decentralisation scheme, sold the sites that had been purchased for decentralisation and put back that scheme by 20 years. He was the main spokesman for Fine Gael on this issue at the time of the announcement and he has now continued the same negative approach to this operation as he had when he cancelled the scheme.

I will give one example of the success of decentralisation. A number of years ago when we resurrected the scheme after Deputy John Bruton cancelled it, it was decided to relocate 1,200 civil servants to Ennis, Limerick and Nenagh. That scheme was completed very successfully meeting the needs of thousands of civil servants who had applied for a transfer. This gave a major boost to the economies of Nenagh and Ennis in particular. The decentralisation and the amalgamation of some other offices into the new State office block on the Kilrush road out of Ennis made a major contribution to the economic development of Ennis and was mainly responsible for the huge economic upsurge in the town in the past year since that took place. Not only was it successful in the economic revitalisation of Ennis — much of which at the time was run down and neglected — but together with urban renewal it is responsible for making Ennis the vibrant town it is today.

That decentralisation scheme has been an outstanding success in meeting the requirements of hundreds of young people, especially those from County Clare who spent years on a waiting list seeking a transfer to Ennis, Limerick and Nenagh. When the Minister for Finance was in Kilrush at another function, he met a deputation of officials from the Revenue office in Limerick who had moved from Dublin. They pressed the Minister to urgently relocate people from Limerick to Kilrush, as many of them commute from west Clare to Limerick every day. Women rearing young families find this a serious burden and expense.

The decision to link Newcastle West and Listowel with Kilrush has been very progressive and forward-looking. It is proposed to have 50 people in each location. I understand there is significant interest in the provision of these offices by people who are willing to put financial commitments behind the proposal and have already offered sites, buildings and land to facilitate this.

I congratulate the Minister and his officials on the work they have done in this regard. I encourage them to press ahead as speedily as possible with the implementation of the decision. I want to nail the propaganda put out by Fine Gael and the Labour Party, in particular, that this cannot and will not work. It has worked before and it will work again. I look forward to hearing a further announcement of decentralisation and the existing plan should be expedited to give people the prospect of working in their own locality resulting in enormous development in the towns that will benefit.

Mr. Higgins

I move amendment No. 1:

To delete all words after "Seanad Éireann" and substitute the following:

"condemns the Government for its failure

—to promote balanced regional development, particularly in relation to the

Border, Midlands and Western Region;

—to meet the targets for infrastructural development as set down in the NDP;

—to synchronise decentralisation plans with the National Spatial Strategy;

—to consult with the public service unions in advance of the announcement of the decentralisation programme, resulting in a minimal uptake by civil servants; and

—to maintain cost competitiveness in the economy, resulting in the wide scale relocation of industries to Eastern Europe and the consequent large number of job losses".

I was astounded when I read the text of this Private Members' motion. I reiterate that I have no problem with decentralisation and with debating it. I have been promoting decentralisation for a considerable time and I agree totally with the concept. However, I was taken aback by the sheer arrogance and the wild inaccuracy of the construction of this motion.

The motion commences by asserting that each region must have balanced regional development. The Government has been paying lip-service to the concept of balanced regional development for almost seven years. In reality regional development could not be more imbalanced than it is at present. The evidence exists in the starkest possible statistics — not mine but official ones. Between 1998 and 2000 employment in the west grew by 15.9% while employment in the south and east grew by 73.4%. How is that for balanced regional development? Both the ESRI and Indecon mid-term evaluations of the national development plan confirm that this hopelessly skewed imbalance has been maintained.

Expenditure on support industry has achieved only 41% of the projected target in the BMW region. During the limited duration of the NDP, the spend on indigenous industry in the BMW region was just 47% of forecast, whereas in the south and east region the spend was 85% of forecast. How is that for balanced regional development? In the BMW region, the IDA got a derisory 15% of the forecast for support for foreign direct investment compared with 55% in the south and east. How is that an example of balanced regional development? To date, €8.2 billion or 77% of the total investment in the national development programme has been invested in the south and east, compared with €2.4 billion in the Border, midlands and western region. Talk of balanced regional development from the Government is a sop and a platitude because matters have not improved. Rather, the imbalance has become considerably greater.

Last week, the National Roads Authority circulated an elaborately produced document which announced that a spend of €8 billion on the national road improvement programme kicks off in 2004. When one examines where the spend is targeted, it is again hopelessly skewed. For example, national road schemes completed in 2003 include the M1 at Cloughran-Lissenhall and Lissenhall-Balbriggan, the Drogheda bypass, the second Westlink bridge, the Celbridge interchange, the Kildare bypass, the Watergrasshill bypass, the Glen of the Downs dual carriageway, the Hurler's Cross-N19 Shannon access dual carriageway, the Youghal bypass and the Skibbereen bypass. Not one of those 11 projects is in the BMW region.

The list of the national roads schemes to be completed in 2004 is the Hughestown-Meera road, the Strokestown-Longford road, the Naas Road-Kingswood interchange, the Monasterevin bypass, the Limerick southern ring-road; Parkway, Limerick; the Cashel bypass, the Ashford-Rathnew dual carriageway, the Ballycarty-Tralee road, the Ballincollig bypass, the Ballina-Bohola road and the Wyatville interchange. Of the 12 projects on this list, just two are in the BMW region. Just two of the national road schemes under construction as of 1 January 2004, of a total of 15 projects, are in the BMW region and the projections are no better.

Paragraphs two and three of the Government motion state that the Seanad congratulates the Government for the commitment it continues to show in implementing the national development plan and bringing forward the national spatial strategy; and accepts that the locations which have been selected take full account of the national spatial strategy, the existence of good transport links — by road, rail and-or air — and the location of existing decentralised offices. Nothing could be further from the truth. Senator Mansergh made an attempt to defend this and demonstrate that there is synchronisation. A total of 53 centres were chosen for decentralisation. As we know, the national spatial strategy is based on gateway and hub towns. Some six gateway towns will benefit from decentralisation — Limerick, which is to get the Department of Foreign Affairs, Waterford, which is to get the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Sligo gets part of the Department of Foreign Affairs, Athlone gets the Department of Education and Science, Tullamore gets the Department of Finance and Mullingar gets the Department of Education and Science also. However, five crucial gateway towns are not included for decentralisation, namely, Galway, Cork, Letterkenny, Dundalk and the greater Dublin area.

Of the hub towns, five have not been included for decentralisation, namely, Ballina, Castlebar, Ennis, Tralee and Tuam. For the Government motion to bravely assert that the locations selected for decentralisation take full account of the national spatial strategy is grossly misleading. The motion goes on to refer to the transfer of staff on a voluntary basis and the fact that there will be no redundancies. However, the uptake of relocation by civil servants has been minimal and I challenge the Minister of State to state how many public servants have opted for transfer down the country on a Department by Department and location by location basis. Based on figures published in the newspapers, it would seem only a trickle has gone.

The whole project is commendable and has been needed for some time. However, to announce the transfer of 10,000 public servants out of Dublin to the country, without any advance discussions with the public service unions, is nothing other than ham-fisted. It was guaranteed, in the first instance, to generate hostility, cynicism and resistance from the unions. We are not moving numbers — we are moving people, many of whom are married and own homes in Dublin. Moreover, many spouses are public servants themselves or work elsewhere and, in many of these cases, second incomes are essential for paying mortgages. If these people move what guarantee is there that they can earn a second income?

From the point of view of the efficiency of the Civil Service, this will lead to wholesale disruption and a negative response. The plan is good but the way in which it was introduced — without any consultation and in one fell swoop — is wrong and, unfortunately, I cannot see it working.

An Cathaoirleach

Senator Bannon, you are the seconder. You have an option to speak later or would you like to speak now?

Mr. Bannon

I will speak now.

Mr. Norris

The Senator might be decentralised if he does not.

Mr. Bannon

This motion has the distinction of being a major exercise in self-congratulation by the Government. When one accomplishes little in one's term in Government, the best option is to blow one's own trumpet. I heard Senator Mansergh get extremely excitable on the issue earlier.

Dr. Mansergh

Is the Senator not excitable himself?

Mr. Bannon

I came into the Chamber in case the Senator had a health problem as a result of his excitement.

An Cathaoirleach

The Senator should address his comments through the Chair.

Mr. Bannon

I draw the Government's attention to the adage that self praise is no praise. No one on this side of the House will praise the Government for its inactivity and broken promises since it was re-elected. The public knows what the Government promised and how little has been delivered upon.

While we welcome the concept of decentralisation, there is a real fear it will never happen. The Government's decentralisation programme has all the hallmarks of a pre-election promise. The budget allocated for it is in the region of €20 million which, it appears, will not even move the furniture from Dublin to some of the Departments. This is a cynical promise by Fianna Fáil and the Progressive Democrats to their candidates in the local and European elections because they are disappointed in the Government's performance since it was returned to office. They want some little trumpet to blow when they face the wrath of the electorate on the doorsteps. The electorate is angry. It is waiting in the long grass and on the doorsteps and the Government will get the message because there is no budget in place to implement decentralisation.

It is difficult to see how 10,300 civil servants can be moved out of the city when the Government cannot fix the many schools which are in need of repair or even keep hospitals open. Just last week, more than 200 people were on trolleys in the eastern health board region alone and the same applies to the other seven health board regions. Crime is completely out of control, the Government cannot recruit the extra 2,000 gardaí it promised and there is no evidence of any coming on stream. At the same time, the Government wants us to believe it can decentralise 10,300 civil servants with the stroke of a pen when there is no timetable in place and no budget to implement the move. This is a distraction from the many stealth taxes contained in the budget, along with cuts in child care grants and community employment schemes. I could go on listing the cuts implemented by the Government until the cows come home.

Improvements to the public service arising from the benchmarking process could be undone by the Government's programme for decentralisation and it may also result in shortfalls of expertise in the public service. If the programme is mishandled, it could result in technical and professional staff, who do not want to leave Dublin, being reassigned to inappropriate jobs, leaving skill shortages in key areas such as revenue, agriculture or probation.

In a recent survey of 450 staff at the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources, just 124 respondents expressed an interest in relocating to the country. There is a danger of staff surpluses in all Departments as new workers will have to be recruited to fill the vacancies outside Dublin and this could result in a large number of public servants in Dublin with no function and no prospects of career advancement. This is a reality. The Tánaiste hinted in January that the targets for decentralisation could be reduced if staff resistance remained strong. There are worrying signs that, despite assurances to the contrary, decentralisation may not be voluntary and civil servants may be forced to move out of Dublin. Will we have a dictatorship imposed by the Fianna Fáil and Progressive Democrats Government?

The national spatial strategy has been effectively ignored by the Government, as my colleague, Senator Higgins stated, to ensure the decentralisation programme has something in it for everyone. Where there is strong ministerial representation, the decentralisation programme was delivered as a plum. It is clear that the decentralisation locations reflect political favours and it is evident that the Government has abandoned its own spatial strategy.

What has the Government achieved in the following areas, for example, the upgrading of the existing power grid? It was promised that the power grid would be extended to the BMW region, but this has not happened to date. The publication of the water quality report last week showed up the lack of investment in water services, particularly in the BMW region. The Government made promises on waste management and that there would be serious investment in waste management measures, but practically nothing has happened. It was proposed that spurs from the national gas grid would be extended to towns in the BMW region, but that has not been delivered. More resources were promised for e-commerce, but that has not been delivered.

The provision of transport in rural areas is very important, especially for people living in isolation. I understand from those who manage the rural transport initiative that there is a serious shortage of funds. There is no provision for additional funding in this area. All in all the Government has behaved very badly. The national development plan has a strategy for making better use of what is already in existence such as the SHIPP programme in the mid-west and the TITAN programme in the south west. The Government is blowing its own trumpet and——

Ms O'Rourke

The Senator will not blow it for us.

Mr. Bannon

The Government should put a little more thought into the subject before tabling its motions. I welcome the Minister for Finance, Deputy McCreevy, to the House.

Minister for Finance (Mr. McCreevy)

I am very pleased to be here this evening to address this motion on decentralisation. The issue has been of considerable interest to Members of the House and I have participated in a number of Adjournment debates on the issue in the Seanad over the past few years.

Since I initially announced the Government's decision to proceed with a new programme of decentralisation in December 1999, the issue of decentralisation has generated considerable interest both in and outside the Houses of the Oireachtas. Interestingly, the Government was, until 3 December last, on the receiving end of criticism for not having taken a decision, but since then we have been criticised on a number of spurious grounds. I intend to explain the background behind the decision which I announced on budget day and to address some of the criticisms made in the wake of that decision, including those included in the amendment to the motion tabled by the Fine Gael Party.

From the time that I first announced the Government's intention to proceed with a new programme, I was determined that it should be comprehensive, one which would have a real impact, address the issue of balanced regional development and make a statement about the Government's confidence in provincial Ireland. While my colleagues and I in Government were aware of a demand for decentralisation throughout the country, I am not sure that any of us could have anticipated its extent. I think by now that anybody with an interest in the issue knows that my Department received submissions from some 130 urban centres in every county in the country. In addition, hundreds of parliamentary questions and numerous Adjournment matters made the case for the inclusion of various towns throughout the country.

The fact is that the Government has now taken its decision and all its attention is now focused on implementing it. On budget night, I announced the membership of an implementation committee, chaired by Mr. Phil Flynn. Mr. Flynn's business and trade union background makes him an ideal person to chair such a committee. In addition, the other members of the committee bring a breadth of expertise which will be particularly beneficial in preparing the implementation plan.

This committee has been hard at work since its establishment and has been charged with producing an implementation plan by the end of next month. I am fully aware of the onerous nature of this timescale, but the Government and I consider it important to build on the momentum which has been created by the programme's announcement.

Senators will also be aware that a special Cabinet sub-committee on decentralisation has been established, comprising the Taoiseach, the Tánaiste, the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and me. The chairman of the implementation committee will report directly to the Cabinet sub-committee.

Senators will also be aware that the Office of Public Works placed advertisements in the national newspapers in late December seeking proposals for suitable office accommodation or suitable sites with either planning permission or appropriate zoning. By the closing date for the submission of proposals, the OPW had received almost 680 proposals covering all 53 locations included in the new programme. I have this year provided a special sum of €20 million to meet any up-front investment in 2004. This is essentially a down payment on the Government's commitment to the programme's implementation.

If there is one thing I want Senators to leave the House with this evening it is a very clear sense of the Government's commitment to the full implementation of the programme of decentralisation. While my Department has long had responsibility for the policy of decentralisation, individual Ministers are taking personal responsibility for the delivery of that part of the programme which comes within their respective remits. In this they are actively and fully supported by the Secretaries General of Departments and the heads of offices. I am absolutely confident that the combined commitment of the political and administrative heads of Departments will ensure that full and expeditious effect will be given to the Government's decision.

There are those who would have one believe that the Government's decision was taken without any consideration for those most affected, the staff. This is simply untrue. From the very outset, I have been conscious of the tremendous human element involved. With this in mind I sought submissions from all of the Civil Service unions and took on board their observations. In addition, the Government took account of the observations of those heads of organisations who had previous experience of earlier phases of decentralisation. All of these external submissions, together with a lengthy internal examination, in the Department resulted in the overall plan which was unveiled on 3 December last.

The Government has been concerned also with operating on a "joined up" basis and has a demonstrable record in following up on that objective. It is for this reason that the decentralisation programme was not developed in isolation from all the other areas of Government policy. For example, cognisance was taken of the national spatial strategy. In the agreed programme for Government, we made it clear that we would take account of the national spatial strategy and, as the motion points out, there is a clear connection between the national development plan and the national spatial strategy and now, in a very tangible and operational way, the decentralisation programme.

It is also worth making the point that, when this programme is fully implemented, there will be a substantial presence of civil servants in virtually every gateway and hub. Furthermore, virtually all of the locations included in the programme are explicitly mentioned in the strategy. The Fine Gael amendment seems to suggest that only hub and gateway towns should have been included in the decentralisation programme. Those who hold such a view should tell that to the people of Portlaoise, Enniscorthy, Carlow, Carrick-on-Shannon, Listowel, Newcastle West, Dungarvan, Tipperary or Drogheda.

Dr. Mansergh

Hear, hear.

Mr. McCreevy

This programme is, as much as anything else, about the promotion of balanced regional development. Why should those towns which have not been identified as hubs or gateways not share in that development? Do they not also have a convincing case for further prosperity? These questions, I suggest, answer themselves.

This programme is a statement of the Government's confidence in provincial Ireland. It will not by itself bring about the kind of regional development the Government considers desirable but what it should do is give a lead to the private sector. There is an unhealthy imbalance of investment in and around Dublin and it is difficult for us, as a Government, to consistently encourage development outside Dublin if we ourselves are not prepared to show leadership.

We have firmly demonstrated our commitment to the regions and now is the time for private investment to follow. All around the country we are seeing dramatic improvements in our physical infrastructure. I accept that there were infrastructural impediments to investment in some parts of the country in the past but the national development plan is delivering an infrastructure which will significantly overcome those impediments.

In a few years, the investment in the NDP should be paying off handsomely with a much greater distribution of investment throughout the country and the consequent social and economic benefits which will follow. Notwithstanding the economic and social benefits which decentralisation can bring to those towns included in the programme and their environs, as well as Dublin, this programme is very much about people. These are the civil and public servants who will either relocate to one of the 53 locations or will choose to remain in Dublin.

We have always acknowledged the people who work in our public service and they are central to the success of this programme. In formulating the principles of the programme, we therefore sought and received the views of all the Civil Service unions based on their past experience. Continuing the practice adopted in the past all moves will be on a voluntary basis and no removal expenses will be payable. There will be no redundancy or early retirement and those not willing to participate will be offered alternative public service jobs in the Dublin area.

With regard to the programme's implementation, we have already commenced consultations not only with the Civil Service unions, but also with all the public service unions concerned, to ensure the smooth operation of the programme. I hope that we can continue to work with them to make the relocation process as smooth as possible.

I assure staff that the recruitment and promotion structures which have served us all well over the years, will still continue to operate. What will have changed, and for the better, is that recruits and promotees from across the country will not be required to come to Dublin to secure either a position or promotion. The same level of promotions will continue to arise in the public service but they will be more fairly distributed across the country.

There are those who have suggested that the programme will impact fatally on the efficient delivery of public services, but I cannot accept this contention. Two of those Departments or offices which most closely interact with the citizens of this country are already heavily decentralised, namely the Department of Social and Family Affairs and the Office of the Revenue Commissioners. We have, of course, learned lessons from their prior experience and these lessons will be put to good effect.

However, the indisputable facts are that these organisations are providing, at the very least, as good a service from various provincial locations as they ever did in Dublin. The continued and, indeed, improved delivery of efficient public services is to the forefront of our minds and I am determined that nothing in this programme will in any way compromise the efficient delivery of public services.

The strategic management initiative can only be improved by relocating the headquarters of eight Departments and the Office of Public Works outside Dublin. This relocation will bring the business of Government far closer to the people.

For far too long, we have brought citizens to the work of Government but now is the time to reverse that practice. After all, we are talking about the public service, which serves people throughout the country and now it will operate among all the people.

The forthcoming decentralisation programme is a radical and ambitious one, which represents a win-win situation for all involved. For 53 towns and localities throughout the country there is the prospect of significant economic and social benefits. I hope the programme will serve as a catalyst for further economic benefit in provincial Ireland. It will make a modest contribution to reducing congestion in our capital. For staff who wish to work outside Dublin, we are providing a unique opportunity, not alone to work outside the capital but also to develop and pursue their careers outside the city. For those who wish to remain in Dublin, there will be ample opportunity to do so, as well as continuing to pursue their legitimate career aspirations there.

I would remind communities whose inhabitants may feel disappointed at not being included in this programme, that the Government has also decided that 500 health service posts — at a later stage in the restructuring of the health service — and approximately 830 IT posts, are also included. Furthermore, the Government has decided that, save in exceptional circumstances, all new public bodies should be located outside Dublin.

As I said in my budget speech, I am convinced that the total number of posts to be relocated should be closer to 12,000 — significantly more than that indicated on budget day.

I commend the motion to the House.

Mr. Norris

I welcome the Minister. I remember his RTE broadcast on budget day, during which one of the commentators said that in the present circumstances it did not look as if there was room for the traditional McCreevy surprise in the budget. The commentator got that one wrong because the Minister most certainly did provide a surprise, which was most interesting and intriguing.

I look on the motion as a waste of time in a sense, because it is a classic political exercise. We will not make any progress on this motion because it is black and white — one side will congratulate the Government while the other side condemns it. As an Independent Member, however, I do not particularly want to get into that.

Ms O'Rourke

Senator Higgins surely wanted it for Knock.

An Cathaoirleach

Senator Norris without interruption, please.

Mr. Norris

I do not mind being interrupted at all, especially by the gracious lady on the front bench.

The whole country is entitled to participate in our economic prosperity, which is one good argument for decentralisation. There are a great number of people from the country who may very well prefer to be in a rural environment, rather than in Dublin. I take that for granted but I am not quite so sure that the decentralisation programme was as well planned as the Minister is retrospectively making it out to have been.

I have listened to discussions where prominent people, including a distinguished academic from UCD, suggested that the Minister's proposals were cutting across the national spatial strategy. That argument remains. Decentralisation has fed the cynicism of some people. There is no doubt — and one can even see it here — that people are mousing over the pickings in their own constituencies. If one examines the allocation of Departments, they are going to places that are very appropriate to the current incumbents of various ministerial posts. That is what has happened and there is no argument about it. It leads, however, to a certain degree of cynicism, of which I share an element.

While I accept the principle of decentralisation — obviously, it is unhealthy that Dublin is so top heavy — I am not sure the programme has been sufficiently prepared. There was a degree of political opportunism, which I do not like, and which does not recommend the programme to the general public. In addition, there are some specific problems, which the Minister has not completely addressed. As a humane person, the Minister has consulted people and has taken the human element into consideration but I would draw to his attention a particular case of which I have heard. I have to confess that I listen a great deal to the wireless and the case I heard concerned a woman who was married to a highly skilled cartographer in Ordnance Survey Ireland. The woman concerned had a job in Dublin, which would be difficult to replicate down the country, and her children were attending school, which is another human problem. The real nub of the problem, however, was that if the man decided he did not want to leave Dublin and the Ordnance Survey was decentralised, what would he be left doing. For whom would he draw maps — the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform? This is where decentralisation hits a crunch point because I do not know how such people will be accommodated. It is a real human problem, which needs to be addressed.

How about decentralising a few offices to the north side of Dublin? What will the Minister do with the Custom House and Tyrone House when the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and the Department of Education and Science, respectively, vacate them? What will happen to those superb 18th century buildings that are landmark sites? Will they be flogged off? Will we put a funfair in them or lease them to McDonalds? I would like to know what will be their fate. I listened with respect to my colleagues on the Fianna Fáil side, and they made a very good argument, particularly Senators Daly and Mansergh, regarding the vitality brought to local areas by the migration of these Departments. That is absolutely true, but why is everything being stripped out of the north side of Ireland's capital city? The only two Departments on the north side are being taken away, and we will be left with the empty shells of buildings. Those areas are just as deprived as any provincial area of the country, and I want to know why we are not committing ourselves to revitalisation of the north inner city of Dublin, where there is a substantial drugs problem apart from anything else. The Government needs to build up that area instead of stripping everything out of it.

Dr. Mansergh

There is the IFSC.

An Cathaoirleach

Senator Norris without interruption.

Mr. Norris

That is true. I certainly agree, but unfortunately it has very little impact on the area, and that is a problem. I accept what the Senator says and admit that I was one of the critics. I thought that it was a white elephant, and I absolutely accept that I was wrong. I am glad it is there, but it does not have sufficient spin-off in the area.

There is another specific matter which I want to raise and which I ask the Minister to examine. I do not expect an answer this evening, since I do not think it is possible to give one, however, I would be grateful if the Minister could examine why the Equality Authority is going to Roscrea. I do not think Roscrea is a place where human rights abuses may not occur or where there may not be people quite well qualified to service the area. I am not putting it in the same light as moving the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources to one of the few landlocked counties, although some people did think that slightly absurd. This is not as absurd as that decision, but I want to know why it is leaving Dublin. I believe there is something sinister behind this and that the Government intends to demote or destroy the Equality Authority. The first reason is that it is being decentralised to Roscrea when it is perfectly obvious it is an agency of the State that needs clear, efficient interaction with all other organs of Government. The Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform is staying in Dublin.

Dr. Mansergh

No, 200 staff members are going to Tipperary.

Mr. Norris

The Senator is welcome to those 200. I hope they take some of the creatures that we see in here sometimes; they will be grand down in Roscrea. In fact, the Senator can have the whole damn lot of them if he wants them. That the authority is being decentralised to Roscrea while the Department is largely staying here is significant. It is being taken away from the area where it fits in organically.

The authority did very good work with the report on equality for gay people. The gay person on it has been replaced by a Progressive Democrats candidate in the local elections who interrupted a question to another candidate on "The Late Late Show" to say that he could not possibly countenance the recognition of domestic partnerships, something to which the majority of parties in this State are committed. What are they at, and why are they undermining this very important agency? Is it lack of finance? Does the Minister know? Why is it taking on no new cases?

The Equality Authority was a marvellous thing. It was ahead of the rest of Europe and something of which we could be proud. I am very much afraid that, masked by decentralisation, this very important agency which gave hope to downtrodden groups will itself be marginalised and ultimately extinguished. I hope the Minister will be able to reassure me, either in writing or in some other way, that this Equality Authority is not being deliberately destroyed, because that is what it looks like to me and many people whom I represent, by no means all of them gay. That is also how it looks to many people in the Equality Authority, and I feel it appropriate to signal that in this House tonight.

(Interruptions).

An Cathaoirleach

Applause from the Gallery is not allowed.

Mr. Glynn

I welcome the Minister to the House. I would like to share my time with Senator Ó Murchú.

An Cathaoirleach

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Mr. Glynn

The reason for this motion is so simple that it is self-explanatory. The Minister gave the reason himself when he replied that, the best way to exhort investors to put money into the country and set up factories and so on outside Dublin was to lead by example. That is precisely what the Minister for Finance, Deputy McCreevy, and the Government have done. It was a reforming and absolutely visionary decision. To my colleague across the Chamber, Senator Bannon, I say that it is timely that this motion has been tabled, since the decision has now been taken by the Government, and it is now time for the private sector to honour its side of the bargain, since we have kept ours. Members on the other side said that it would not happen. Perhaps they hope it will not happen, but they will be disappointed. Regarding people not being happy, I do not know which poll results Senator Bannon was examining, but they must be different from those that I saw.

The decision to locate staff, for example, in my own town of Mullingar, as well as Athlone, was timely. We in Mullingar and Westmeath have no Minister. We have three very active Oireachtas Members, Senator O'Rourke, Deputy Cassidy and myself, and I suppose that, no more than other Members of both Houses, we spent a great deal of our time — I certainly did — lobbying the Minister for Finance, Deputy McCreevy, on this decision. I make no apologies to anyone for that.

Mr. Bannon

What happened on the health boards? The Government is centralising those. The Midland Health Board——

An Cathaoirleach

Senator Bannon, allow the Senator to speak. Senator Glynn, please speak through the Chair.

Mr. Ryan

We sorted it out.

Mr. Glynn

We have no bad news for the Senators. I know that they would like that, but they will be disappointed. We have two members of two parties which were in a Government that made Scrooge look like a benevolent Santa Clause a few years ago. For God's sake, will they cop on?

Mr. Ryan

The current Minister for Finance identified it, and we sorted it out.

Mr. Glynn

It would take a very short answer to say what you did.

An Cathaoirleach

The Senator will speak through the Chair and ignore interruptions.

Mr. Glynn

That announcement came at a time when Tarkett (Ireland) Limited had closed in Mullingar, followed a short time later by Oxford Health Plans Ireland Limited, Foxteq (Irl.) Limited and Penn Racquet Sports Limited. It was extremely timely. I remember, on many occasions, Senators from Dublin coming in and lambasting the Government for not doing something about gridlock. This initiative does just that. Regarding what is happening in the regions, the recent announcement by the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Cullen, that €8 billion will be invested in roads is significant indeed.

In 20 years the population of Mullingar has increased by some 50%, so this announcement coming at this time——

Mr. Bannon

For 11 years Mullingar Hospital has remained an empty shell.

Mr. Glynn

He is not talking about phase two.

Mr. Bannon

Fianna Fáil and the Progressive Democrats did it.

An Cathaoirleach

Senator Glynn without interruption.

Mr. Glynn

He is talking about a project that is 400% bigger. I know the Senator will be disappointed, but we will deliver. I thank the Minister once more for this very innovative decision that will have far-reaching positive implications. How many Members of this House or the other House have not been approached by people in Dublin who wish to relocate to the country? In my 25 years in public life, I have met many of them.

Labhrás Ó Murchú

I thank Senator Glynn for sharing time with me. In supporting the motion, I am keenly aware that what we are really dealing with here is a good-news story that has captured the whole country's imagination. When it was announced by the Minister for Finance, no one envisaged anything as ambitious or extensive. I find it slightly ironic — I do not mean the debate in the House — how we dissect and analyse this decision when, over the years, industry, national institutions, transport infrastructure and everything else moved into Dublin without anyone questioning for one moment why that was happening. Of course it is a radical decision, but if we are talking about regional development, there is no point any more in cosmetic remedies, because they will not work. We have seen where they have been employed that down the road further difficulties have arisen.

I am delighted that we have this elaborate decentralisation programme not just because of the services which, or the number of people who, will move into the given area, but because of the other developments which are bound to follow from it. This will gather momentum as time goes on. If I was to make one appeal more than any other — I am sure each Member would like to see this move as expeditiously as possible and I have no doubt it will happen — it would be to help the people who will move into those areas to acquire houses without any obstruction. I am thinking particularly of rural Ireland. I believe an announcement is imminent on a less tight regime in regard to planning and one off houses in rural Ireland.

It is vitally important that happens because there are many people in Dublin who would be attracted to the country if they felt they could have the quality of life one finds in rural Ireland. Unfortunately, there is the perception abroad, which is very much an urban one, that provincial and rural Ireland is, in some way, a primitive reservation for second-class citizens. Nothing could be further from the truth. Anybody who has put up with what has happened in Dublin over the past 20 years or so knows there is a real quality of life for the individual, family and community in rural Ireland. It is absolutely vital that, as part of the package, the news we expect — I hope it will be interesting — will endeavour to help those people who want to build or purchase a house in rural Ireland.

We often talk about a quality of life in an artistic or a cultural sense. The same applies here in that rural Ireland, by and large, has been the custodian of many of our traditions. It has been the custodian of a quality of life which very often does not come under the same onslaught as might happen in the capital.

There is a perception in rural Ireland that if something happens in Dublin, it is big or tragic news but if it happens in rural Ireland, that is not the case. An example of that — I am not taking from the trauma involved — is if there is a flood in Dublin, one would think from the media that the whole island was going to sink. If there is a flood down the country, it, and its consequences, are ignored. The reason is that the media, by and large, are so close to what is happening in Dublin. I remember a "Late Late Show" when Gay Byrne was in charge of the programme. A debate was taking place and a particular senior politician, whose name or party I will not mention, arrived in the studio without an invitation and went straight up to join the panel to participate in the discussion. He said he was watching the programme at home, felt strongly about what he heard and had to come in to participate. What about the person in Cashel, Ballina or Cork? They could not do likewise.

The message being sent here is not just a vote of confidence in provincial Ireland. It is also sending a signal that, once and for all, there will be a greater balance and spread of whatever is available. Members may have noticed that few people in Dublin criticised the decision. The reason is that they know well that Dublin is absolutely saturated. One can talk about gridlock and the remedies but the wise man and woman on the street warned 25 years ago that we were pushing too much into Dublin and that the day of reckoning would eventually come. We are, once and for all, dealing with a good news and a radical story. What is important now is to put a positive spin on it and to put the shoulder to the wheel. This is just the start of many aspects of decentralisation.

Mr. Ryan

Not for the first time the Labour Party is in the position, via its leader in this case, of having to inject a bit of reality into the nonsense Fianna Fáil goes on with before elections. Sometimes Fianna Fáil persuades people, as it did in the last general election, and then must face the truth afterwards. This time, I suspect, it is not persuading people. The obviously inappropriate response from the public gallery, but nevertheless very indicative response, to Senator Norris's point that the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources will be based in one of the few landlocked counties suggests that the public has copped on to what this is all about.

(Interruptions).

Mr. Mooney

What about the Department of Agriculture and Food being stuck in the middle of a city?

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Senator Ryan without interruption.

Mr. Ryan

I really feel threatened by Senator Mooney and I thank the Leas-Chathaoirleach for his defence.

I must explain this in small words so that the Members opposite understand it because they apparently do not want to listen.

Mr. Mooney

We are getting to the Senator.

Mr. Ryan

They do not want to listen, so I must say this in simple words. My party in Government decided to do something about real decentralisation in the Education Act which was passed in the 1992-97 period. It decided to decentralise power in education. Packing civil servants around the country is not decentralising power; it is decentralising civil servants. This Government believes, as did its predecessor, in centralising power. It has taken power away from health boards and local authorities and from local education authorities which would have decentralised education because it said it was too expensive and would cost €20 million.

The Government cannot tell us how much this exercise will cost. The Department of Finance, which is so good at telling everybody else how much things should cost, does not know how much this programme will cost. This is the Department which lectures the rest of us and the Houses of the Oireachtas and tells Members of the Oireachtas what they are entitled to claim in expenses, but which does not know what the decentralisation exercise will cost. The reason is that it was thought up by politicians as a political gimmick three days before the budget.

Dr. Mansergh

Rubbish.

Mr. Ryan

What will it cost? I would like to know.

Minister of State at the Department of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Treacy)

Rubbish.

Mr. Ryan

It will cost rubbish. Fianna Fáil knows about rubbish.

There is a succession of agencies here. I am concerned that we have a grossly over-centralised system of Government, not a system of administration. We are doing nothing about that because the Department whose Minister is the author of this is the last bastion of Stalinism in Europe. It believes that the centre knows best for everybody, which is the reason it wants to control everything, including every Department and every major decision in every Department, and to retain centralised control over every decision taken by local government.

Dr. Mansergh

Is that what multi-annual budgets are about?

Mr. Ryan

That is a fact. All legislation which comes through this House states that where expenditure is involved in the Department, it is subject to the control of the Minister for Finance as if there was some superior wisdom in that Department. If we want to decentralise, the first thing we must do is decentralise power. If one decentralises power and authority, one then creates increased numbers of public servants in various areas. That works and is real, effective and efficient. This is an exercise in tokenism, a large part of which I hope will never be implemented because it will be a disaster for the efficiency of public servants.

The Minister cited two examples — the Revenue Commissioners and the Department of Social and Family Affairs. They have been decentralised because they provide a regional office to provide a regional service to people in the regions.

Dr. Mansergh

What about the Central Statistics Office in Cork?

Mr. Ryan

That is not what this is about. The CSO has been an extraordinarily successful transfer because it is an integrated body, most of whose work is done within the body. What use will the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources and the Minister be in County Cavan, travelling in droves up and down to Dublin each time an Oireachtas committee wants to meet them or the Minister wants to come to Dublin, etc? It is a spurious idea.

If the Government wants to decentralise power, it should strengthen local government, which it has resolutely refused to do, choosing instead to engage in a token exercise which most people know will not work. The Department also knows it will not work because the Department of Finance will not put a figure on the cost. Has anybody ever heard of the Department of Finance supporting a project for which it did not know the cost, in this case the costs associated with civil servants commuting between various parts of the country and of having essentially two senior staffs in each Department, with a Secretary General in Dublin and another in Cork, Cavan or elsewhere? To ensure the system does not fall apart, parallel administrations will be required in Dublin and the region in question.

One could argue about the merits of decentralising some of the agencies selected. The fundamental thrust of the proposal, the movement of the headquarters of Departments, is profoundly bad for public administration but good for the image of the Fianna Fáil Party as we approach local elections in which it will receive a hammering. The party hopes the decentralisation announcement will bail it out in a few specific cases.

Ms Feeney

Rubbish.

Mr. Ryan

We knew in 1992 and in 2002 that the Government would con the people but the people have copped on.

Dr. Mansergh

The Senator certainly did not persuade them.

Mr. Ryan

I know the Fianna Fáil Party well having grown up with it.

Ms Feeney

The Senator can dream on.

Mr. Mooney

He is an expert in elections.

Mr. Ryan

My electoral record is a good deal better than Senator Mooney's. Having been elected to the House on more occasions than most Senators, I have a reasonably good record in that regard.

Ms Feeney

The Senator should address the issue.

Mr. Ryan

Senator Mooney and I should not shout at each other about electoral success. Neither of us is in a position to speak on the matter and we should not pursue it any further.

The Minister of State stated that people who do not want to move will be offered alternative public service jobs in Dublin. A significant number of the agencies in question, as distinct from the Civil Service, are specialised. They include, for example, the Equality Authority, the Arts Council and similar bodies. According to the Minister of State, employees of these agencies who do not wish to move will be offered alternative public service jobs in Dublin. What will staff of Bord Bia, the Arts Council, An Bord Glas, Bord Iascaigh Mara and other specialist agencies do if they do not want to move? Will specialist public servants with specialist technical knowledge fill jobs in the manner in which certain staff in the Land Commission did for years following its abolition because nobody could think of anything for them to do?

The thinking behind the proposal makes little sense, is fundamentally illogical and betrays the absence of enthusiasm by the Department of Finance, given that it has not yet put a cost on the plans.

Mr. MacSharry

I welcome the opportunity to speak on the motion, which I support, and I welcome the Minister of State to the House. Decentralisation is an integral part of the Government's commitment to balanced regional development. I am delighted civil servants and their families will relocate throughout the regions as part of the programme. I wholeheartedly agree that balanced regional development is an essential way forward and congratulate the Minister for Finance on his foresight in decentralising Departments from Dublin. The advantages of transferring entire Departments include ease of promotion, accessibility to services for those who need them most and tangible evidence of the Government's commitment to regional balance across 25 counties.

Although it does not represent an end in itself, decentralisation is a beginning and a method by which we can continue to progress the significant efforts we have already made in tackling some of the serious regional imbalances which have developed over many decades. History will record that members of the Fianna Fáil Party, in Government, were the pioneers in attempting to successfully address regional imbalance, starting in 1989 with the decentralisation programme which has proven to be such a success and continuing with the developments contained in budget 2004.

I am satisfied that the units being transferred under decentralisation are sufficiently large to provide career opportunities for staff in their current Department or another Department within a reasonable commutable distance. As this decentralisation programme is aimed at all levels of civil servants, progressive civil servants can look forward with confidence to good career prospects and opportunities outside Dublin. It could be argued that this issue was a neglected prerequisite for the decentralisation programme of 1989.

Too much of our public administration is still concentrated in the capital. We bear witness to the pressures placed on public services and the quality of life in Dublin caused by rapid population growth. In rural and regional Ireland the opposite is taking place. The regions have been subjected to massive depopulation trends, which have perpetuated a brain drain and resource drain to the east coast. Governments led by the Fianna Fáil Party were the first and only Governments to recognise consistently that this is a pattern of development which is neither economically efficient nor socially sustainable. I commend them on the implementation, initially in 1989 and more recently in budget 2004 of one of the most obvious solutions to the problem.

Given advances in and dependence on information technology, there is no reason Departments should remain in Dublin rather than carry out their business in an equally convenient rural or regional location. This, in turn, will help to correct regional imbalances. The Fianna Fáil Party in Government has again taken the necessary steps in this regard. We have a proud record of decentralisation and sections of Departments already moved have been outstanding successes.

Approximately 34,000 civil servants and 2,500 public servants are currently employed in the non-commercial, State sponsored bodies. Following the earlier programme of decentralisation of Departments and the well established presence of regional and local offices of the Departments of Agriculture and Food and Social and Family Affairs and the Office of the Revenue Commissioners, some 14,000 civil servants located outside Dublin. Effectively, therefore, almost 40% of the Civil Service is already located in the provinces. This demonstrates how we have led by example in attracting foreign direct investment and encouraging indigenous industry to locate in rural and regional areas. If the State shows that it can successfully make the regions as attractive as the capital, foreign direct investment and indigenous investment will follow.

Already we can see the effects of budget 2004 on investment throughout the regions. A significant number of indigenous and multinational employers have started to look beyond Dublin to more cost effective regional locations. The implementation of decentralisation by the Government is a win-win proposition for all involved. It will make a contribution to reducing city centre congestion in Dublin and will be a statement of the Government's intent in this regard. It will provide a significant boost to those centres in which Departments will be relocated and beyond as people choose to live in neighbouring towns and villages. It will bring economic benefits to the regions and, I hope, act as a powerful catalyst for further economic growth in towns throughout the country. The decentralisation of Government offices will also have a positive effect on the quality of life as towns and villages are revitalised.

I support the provision that the transfer of civil servants under the decentralisation programme will take place on a voluntary basis. It is important we satisfy all components of social partnership when we advocate moving such a significant number of civil servants from the capital. I am pleased that consultations have taken place and will continue to take place between the relevant trade unions and Government representatives to ensure the relocation will run as smoothly as possible and on a voluntary basis only.

While I fully support the decentralisation proposals, many challenges must still be addressed. One such issue is the infrastructural questions which surround aspects of the national development plan. I advocate the speedy implementation of the national infrastructure Bill, which could put to an end to the objections of groups restricting the progress of the NDP and holding the majority to ransom. The longer the full potential of the NDP is curbed by tenacious protesters and ulterior motivated objectors, the greater will be the effect on the provision of the infrastructure required to complement the relocation of civil servants nationwide and the national spatial strategy as a whole. I suggest we press for an early debate on the national infrastructure Bill in order that the Government's plans to decentralise Departments and offices realise their maximum potential.

We also face challenges with regard to the national spatial strategy, which offers another excellent opportunity to further build on the work we have already done to address the regional imbalance. I wholeheartedly congratulate the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government on the spatial strategy. We must ensure we meet our responsibility to ensure that all arms of the State — semi-State bodies, local authorities and Departments — buy into the strategy and its principles. I respectfully suggest that legislation may be required to ensure this occurs in light of the behaviour of some of these bodies in the past. Iarnród Éireann, for example, took decisions about downgrading freight and various other matters which did not appear to be consistent with the overall aims and principles of the spatial strategy. We have a responsibility to address this and I ask the Minister of State to discuss with his colleagues whether a legislative umbrella could be introduced to allow all arms of the State to buy into the strategy and act in unison with its aims and principles when conducting their business.

Budget 2004 is a major step towards achieving the full decentralisation of Departments. The challenges must be addressed. I suggest that regional re-balancing be supported by legislative structures which tie in all aspects of Government's commitment to regional development. I reiterate my support for this Private Members' motion. I congratulate the Government and the progressive and proactive steps taken to date to ensure that the prosperity of the east coast continues but not necessarily at the expense of the BMW region and the other regions which need this investment.

Mr. Bradford

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on the motion and the amendment. I have addressed the question of decentralisation on numerous occasions both in this House and in the other House. I am supportive of the broad concept of decentralisation. The programme of decentralisation was announced by the Minister in his Budget Statement last December to the surprise of many.

In my view, approximately half the announcements and the proposals are reasoned, reasonable and real. They are workable and they will work. I regret to conclude that the other half or at least a majority of the remaining half will turn out to be political pet projects, cruel con jobs which will not work, in my view.

If the Minister of State requires proof of my argument, I ask him and his colleague to consider the announcement with respect to Mitchelstown. The Minister of State will be familiar with that town when he wears his agricultural hat. The town has recently suffered and is continuing to suffer a significant degree of job losses. There was some surprise in the town and in my view there was some surprise politically at the announcement made by the Minister for Finance that 200 jobs would be decentralised from the Bus Éireann headquarters in Dublin to Mitchelstown which is to become the new centre for Bus Éireann. This was welcome news for Mitchelstown and the region and welcomed by all concerned for the future of Mitchelstown.

There are fewer than 100 people working in the Bus Éireann headquarters in Dublin. There have been many political riddles from this Government and from the Minister for Finance and his colleagues, but will the Minister of State explain the riddle of how 200 jobs will move from Bus Éireann headquarters to Mitchelstown when fewer than 100 people work in Bus Éireann headquarters? I regard this as a cruel, political con trick.

Dr. Mansergh

They will probably come from other regional headquarters.

Mr. Bradford

We are advised that 200 people will move from headquarters. Unless the Minister of State insists that all the bus drivers will move to live in Mitchelstown, there has been no talk of Bus Éireann employees in other parts of the country being moved. It was announced that the headquarters of Bus Éireann would move to Mitchelstown and it would require 200 staff to run that head office whereas fewer than 100 staff are currently employed in the Dublin head office. I ask the Minister of State to be real in his comments.

I hope the Mitchelstown example will not be repeated in other projects. The Minister announced a figure of 12,000 or 14,000. We should start from the premise of working with facts. I am disappointed that the people of Mitchelstown are being conned by this Government. The figures as announced are a gross distortion of facts but I hope the 90 or 100 staff will move to Mitchelstown where they are needed and will be welcomed.

The Minister of State said there were complaints that the consultation process had gone on too long but it is a necessary process. In response to parliamentary questions asked over a year ago, there was an indication that approximately 10,000 civil servants had indicated a desire to move to provincial locations. There is a significant number of people both in Departments and in semi-State offices who would like to move to rural and provincial locations. It remains to be seen whether that desire to move can be married with the announcements. The indications from offices and particularly from head offices which are due to move, is that the numbers are not yet adding up. The programme of decentralisation is laudable but we must be realistic. I hope the figures I have presented in respect of Mitchelstown will not be replicated across other agencies and other Departments. I was impressed by the announcement to move 200 staff fromBus Éireann headquarters and I am disappointed to learn it was a mirage rather than a real project.

Dr. Mansergh

The Senator should study it more closely.

Mr. Bradford

The hub towns in the spatial strategy have been referred to by other speakers. There was a substantial welcome for that proposal from all sides of the House. More balanced regional and local development is required and the spatial strategy will play a significant role in that regard. The town of Mallow has been designated as a hub town and was very fortunate in being chosen for decentralisation. Decentralised offices should be centred in gateway and hub towns where possible.

Dr. Mansergh

And in other towns.

Mr. Bradford

I agree with the Senator. In order to be consistent with what was said 12 or 18 months ago, the starting point should be the gateway and hub towns. It is surprising that some of those towns have been left out of this programme.

While the concept of decentralisation is positive and there are thousands of civil servants who would be interested in moving to provincial locations, there is a difficulty in matching the people to the moves. Much work is required if what the Minister said on 3 December is to turn out to be real. I wish the Minister of State well in his endeavours and ask him to answer my query about Mitchelstown. I ask him not to waste his time telling me about jobs from other sections of Bus Éireann. The Minister made a promise which was repeated locally as late as last Friday night in the presence of the Taoiseach by the Government representative for Mitchelstown, that the headquarters of Bus Éireann would be moving to Mitchelstown and would be providing 200 jobs.

Mr. Treacy

Further reassurance for the people.

Mr. Bradford

In order to restore credibility, the Minister of State might answer my question.

Mr. Kenneally

I wish to share my time with Senator Ormonde. I welcome the Minister of State to the House and am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on this subject. I am a supporter of the spatial strategy and I am an advocate of the Government's policy in that regard. I am a long-time supporter of the decentralisation process, going back to before I entered the Oireachtas in 1989. I have always regarded it as being of benefit to the country. It is the case that one third of the population is living in one little corner in Dublin and overflowing into the adjoining counties. It is not healthy and it is not good for the country. The population should be evenly distributed.

Some of my colleagues were surprised at the attitude of Fine Gael and the Labour Party to this motion. They should not be because Fine Gael and the Labour Party are consistent in their attitude to decentralisation; they have always been against it and they are still against it. I am amazed at how out of touch they are with the wishes of the people. They have proven tonight that they are out of touch.

Over the years, perhaps civil servants have not wanted to leave Dublin because it was more difficult to do so. Our regional towns and cities were not as well developed and the idea of moving around the country might not have been as attractive as it is now. Ireland has changed completely in recent years and its towns and cities have been developed. People require schools, good restaurants and pubs, shopping facilities and recreational amenities, all of which are now available in the regions, within a short distance of most people's homes. It is evident that there will be more facilities in a place like Dublin, because of its sheer size, but everything is available in the regions now. The prospect of moving out of Dublin is now attractive for most people. They know they will not be discommoded by finding that certain services are unavailable.

It is not as difficult as it once was to persuade civil servants to move from Dublin. They are familiar with the experiences of their colleagues who have already moved. I would like to query some of the figures that have been cited in this regard. It has emerged that when those working in Departments were asked if they want to move to places like Ennis and Shannon, just 2% or 3% of them said that they were willing to do so. It may be the case that they are unwilling to move to the towns about which they were asked, but they may be keen to go to plenty of other places. They should be asked if they want to decentralise.

The Secretary General of the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources and many of his senior officials attended a joint committee meeting yesterday. The Secretary General said that when an initial trawl of the Department was conducted — the survey did not encourage anybody to move — 30% of its civil servants said they were willing to decentralise. They may not necessarily want to move to Cavan, where the Department will be located, but they want to decentralise. We are well on the way to meeting the target numbers for decentralisation because people want to go.

I recall that when I said to a civil servant who had moved to the Land Registry in Waterford that I was unaware that she was from the Waterford region, she said that neither her nor her husband were from the region. They had examined the possibility of moving to the region, for example by comparing the type of house they could buy in Waterford to the house in which they lived in Dublin. The traffic problems they experienced in Dublin do not exist in Waterford. They decided they could enjoy a far better lifestyle in Waterford and they are now quite happy.

The experience I have outlined is replicated in every town and city throughout the country. Civil servants who have moved are quite happy with what they have done. We are looking for 10,000 people to move and I do not think we will have a problem in that regard. It is obvious that civil servants will transfer across Departments, which has always happened. The Government's decision to proceed with the decentralisation programme is a marvellous one. I fully support the motion before the House.

Ms Ormonde

I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Treacy, to the House. I endorse the motion before the House. I am happy to outline why I feel that the proposed programme of decentralisation is the best way forward.

I live in Dublin. I travelled to Bray at 8 a.m. the other day, but the return journey, at 8.45 a.m., nearly did my head in. I had time to do a great deal of thinking, because the journey from Bray to the centre of town took an hour and a half. I immediately started to wonder how we will live like this for the rest of our lives. If Dublin continues to grow in this way, over 50% of everything will be in the city, which is already top-heavy. It is difficult to go anywhere in Dublin. If one wants to go to a restaurant, one might have to book ten days in advance to be sure of getting a table. It is a constant effort to get from A to B if one wants to go to a function, for example. Young people who have just finished college often come to me to explain that they would love to work somewhere other than Dublin, but no jobs are available in such locations. There are great opportunities in the Civil Service, but most of them are located in Dublin. We have a golden opportunity to bring about a change in this regard and we should facilitate that.

The decentralisation of Civil Service jobs is voluntary. Nobody is being forced from Dublin to work in another location. Civil servants have a choice. People are grabbing this opportunity because they want to move to another location. There is no comparison between the quality of life of young people who live in the country and that of those who live in Dublin. The social life in regional areas is superb, comparatively speaking. Many types of jobs will be available in decentralised offices. I welcome the Minister's statement that there are opportunities for career development within the Civil Service. The problem of limited opportunities will cease to exist. We have to go with the flow.

I congratulate the Government on taking this lead, because there is a huge imbalance. I call on private sector employers to promote decentralisation, rather than concentrating their jobs in Dublin and along the east coast. We should spread the opportunities. This is a beautiful country. We should get the balance right. The flow of jobs should be to provincial areas rather than to the city. Dublin is already defunct as a top city. It is a lovely city to live in, but the quality of life is no longer there. I congratulate the Minister and I hope we will move this process forward fairly quickly.

Mr. O'Toole

I am delighted to have this opportunity to contribute to this debate. I have given serious consideration to supporting the Government motion, but I have a personal rule about Private Members' motions which congratulate the Government — they are impossible to support. The Government's approach gives the fingers to the other side of the House. I always appeal to Governments not to propose such motions. Although the Government's decentralisation policy has many good aspects, I do not think it is a cause for congratulation. There is more to support in the decentralisation programme than there is to oppose.

I do not think the Government's case has been well served by some of the arguments that have been made this evening. I appreciate that Senator Ormonde made many valid points, with which I do not argue, but her contribution reflects a certain type of view. I do not mean this in a demeaning way. Many people argue that because we cannot move on the roads or get into a restaurant, we should move all that crowd down the country to make a bit of space for the rest of us living here.

Ms Ormonde

No, that is not true.

Mr. O'Toole

Such an argument sounds better from those who do not intend to stay here. I may not have reflected exactly the points made by Senator Ormonde, but I am pointing out what comes across to me when I hear such speeches. The Dublin-centric view of society holds that we should make space for those of us who have a right to be here. It is a difficult issue.

We could be doing many things that we are not doing in this House. I have failed to start any movement in respect of the committees of these Houses. Joint committees should meet outside the Houses of the Oireachtas, just as committees of other Parliaments meet in provincial locations. I do not mean that committee members should visit such locations to meet local people or other groups, but that they should have actual meetings in other parts of the country. I pleaded with the Joint Committee on Arts, Sport, Tourism, Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs to hold a certain number of its formal meetings in Gaeltacht areas each year. I am not referring to ordinary meetings with people.

The fact that there is no presidential residence other that in the Phoenix Park is a reflection of the Dublin-centric attitude to which I referred. I am aware that the Constitution requires the President to live in Dublin, or near Dublin. I do not think the Minister of State will disagree with me when I say that every time I pass Portumna Castle——

Mr. Treacy

It needs to be restored.

Mr. O'Toole

——I think it would be a splendid country residence for the President.

Mr. U. Burke

It has no roof.

Mr. Bradford

Now we know who the Independent candidate for the Presidency will be.

Mr. O'Toole

The castle was built many years ago by Ulick de Burgo.

Mr. Treacy

His cousin is here.

Mr. U. Burke

He failed to put a roof on the castle.

Mr. Treacy

It was partly because people would not help him out.

Mr. O'Toole

We need to examine these things. It will be impossible to implement the decentralisation proposal in three years. The idea that this can be achieved has raised people's hackles. This regularly happens when a good idea is brought forward. There should be a discussion on the principle of the issue and a discussion on its implementation. Everybody gets confused when the principle is lost because implementation difficulties are encountered. It is a fact that this cannot be done in three years, but I think it could be done in ten years. I believe that approximately one quarter of those working in Departments in Dublin would be happy to move from Dublin. New recruits could be located outside Dublin over a ten-year period, which is approximately one quarter of a career. The target can be met by natural evolution. Approximately half of a Department could be located elsewhere in this way, which involves evolution and voluntary movement, rather than persuasion. If one told people to proceed in this way, but to move to Dublin if they wanted further promotion, one would suddenly encounter a completely different attitude. People will no longer want to rush to Dublin if they can be promoted to a senior position in their provincial bases. We need to consider the matter in this light.

The implementation of the plan should take place in a much more organic fashion. Senator Bradford pointed out that somebody had promised 200 jobs in a place where there were only 80 people working. If this is true, it brings the whole thing into disrepute. Knowing Senator Bradford, I do not think he would have brought forward that suggestion if he did not believe it to be true.

Dr. Mansergh

I do not believe it.

Mr. O'Toole

If we are wrong about it, somebody should tell us we are wrong. These things are important. We need to consider decentralisation as a proactive measure that ties into other plans. I do not believe it ties into the national spatial strategy. It is not complementary to the strategy at all — in many cases it is quite the opposite, filling gaps left by the spatial strategy in order to satisfy people. That will not work.

I regret that on an issue on which there is, in principle, all-party agreement, there is total division on the matter of implementation. There is something wrong there. It is a matter of change management. I agree with many of the points the Minister made earlier, but I have some reservations. Senator Mansergh and I, wearing other hats, have considered the strategic management initiatives over the years, a core principle of which was change management. There is no evidence of any kind of proper change management in what we have heard so far about the implementation of this very good idea. That is the problem. Nobody can disagree with the principle of decentralisation. Nobody so far in the debate has dared to say he or she is opposed to it. All the opposition has been based on the detail. This will always be the case, but it is a pity we cannot obtain agreement on implementation.

Decentralisation will simply not happen in three years. In three years, whoever is on this side of the House will stand up and accuse the Government of saying it would happen when it did not. The same debate will continue endlessly, in a circular fashion, without a solution ever being found. People will justify what they did and blame other people. We should recognise that it is too big a project to implement in three years and that it cannot be done in that time. We should reassess the whole plan. It is a good idea and has substantial support — in fact, it easily has the support of the majority — but its implementation must be reconsidered. It will not be implemented in the face of so much opposition.

I agree that some of the comments made about certain places are utterly unacceptable. There is nothing wrong with putting the Equality Authority in Roscrea if that is the final decision. I do not see what point anyone could make about that. Nobody can say that they wanted another Department to come to Carlow or anything of that sort. Some of us represent a constituency that covers all of Ireland and beyond and we have a respect for all these places. There is no town on which I could not give a brief lecture, covering its beauty, interests and history and the reasons someone might want to live there.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

The Senator should not do a tour at this stage.

Mr. O'Toole

It gets my back up to hear people dismissing places outside Dublin as though they are backwoods in which we would not plant cabbages, let alone place a Department. We need to change that attitude in our utterly Dublin-centric society. I am glad the Government has challenged us by bringing forward the plans for decentralisation. Unfortunately, I cannot congratulate the Government on a plan which cannot be implemented within the proposed three year period and therefore I cannot support the motion.

Mr. Mooney

I wish to share time with Senators Wilson and Feeney.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Mr. Mooney

It must be difficult to be in Opposition for the one single issue that has captured the imagination of the entire country. Picking up the cue of Senator O'Toole, who surprisingly finished a very positive contribution by saying he could not support the motion on a matter of implementation——

Mr. O'Toole

It was a matter of congratulation.

Mr. Mooney

The words of Senator O'Toole, as the former president of ICTU, will carry some weight. The question of implementation is something to which we will have to return.

When this year's budget was introduced, the one issue that captured people's imagination was decentralisation. This must be admitted by people all over the political spectrum. The very criticism that has been continuously levelled at this Government, particularly our leader — that of indecisiveness — has been turned on its head. The Minister for Finance, Deputy McCreevy, stated that more than 130 submissions had been received. It must have been an extremely difficult job, if not impossible, for any Minister for Finance or member of the Government to decide where the various Departments would go. It would also have proven a challenge for those on the other side of the House if they had been in Government. I do not like to sound as though I am repeating everything Senator O'Toole said, but whatever the criticisms that may be levelled about implementation or the electoral advantages that may accrue from this, it is churlish to suggest that the decisions taken about where the Departments should go were questionable. That is a contemptible position to take and it shows a certain amount of typical Irish begrudgery and envy — that idea that one town has something while another does not.

I welcome the developments. A total of 275 jobs are coming to Carrick-on-Shannon. Jobs are also coming to Sligo, Roscommon and Cavan, all of which are within 30 miles of where I live. The economic and social impact of those jobs on my town of Drumshanbo in County Leitrim will be immense. That is the matter about which I am concerned in the implementation process. I like where I live because of where it is. I do not wish to live in Dublin, Cork, Galway or any of the burgeoning cities around the country. I do not have anything against these cities — I love visiting them. Like most Senators, I spend half my working week in Dublin. I enjoy Dublin — I like its cultural life and its buzz. However, I like where I am living because it has certain unique qualities. I hope that uniqueness will not be lost because of decentralisation and that the Government will take account of the social and economic impact of transferring significant numbers of people out of their natural environment, in most cases, to these towns and cities. The infrastructure of these places should be supportive so that the transfer of people will not destroy the quality of life we have all enjoyed and continue to enjoy.

I wanted to make that point because I know that people will welcome and embrace the concept of decentralisation, especially in a county such as my own which has suffered from the ravages of emigration, as has most of the west and the midlands. They will welcome the injection of jobs and cultural diversity. We will embrace the people who are coming to live among us. The Government has a responsibility to ensure this is a smooth transition that will not seriously disrupt the social fabric of the Ireland I know and love.

Ms Feeney

I congratulate the Minister for Finance, Deputy McCreevy, and the Government on the wonderful initiative we know as decentralisation. I was born and reared in what is now a gateway town and I am now fortunate enough to live in another gateway town. I know at first hand the immeasurable impact decentralisation has on a town such as Sligo. We have the pensions section of the Department of Social, Community and Family Affairs, which has provided more than 700 jobs. Nobody can know what this has meant to Sligo and its environs. It has made the town. The vibrancy in the town and county goes beyond anything we expected.

Other speakers asked why everything should be kept on the east coast. Of course Departments should be decentralised. There was a constant stream of begrudgery from the Opposition. The only problem Fine Gael and the Labour Party have is that the idea was not theirs. When those parties were in power all those years ago, they did not introduce any programme such as this. One Senator claimed that no power was being given in this programme. However, the most important way of giving power is through jobs. Relocating 100 jobs to Sligo town will mean an extra 250 people living there. I could go on all night as to what that will do for services, sporting clubs and schools in the town as it is a good news story.

Mr. Wilson

I welcome the Minister of State at the Department of Agriculture and Food, Deputy Treacy, and his officials to the House. I had a detailed speech prepared in defence of my native county but I have to forgo it for reasons of time.

Mr. B. Hayes

Hallelujah.

Mr. Wilson

I welcome the Government's decentralisation programme announced in the budget. I especially welcome the decentralisation of the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources to Cavan town——

Mr. Scanlon

Hear, hear.

Mr. McHugh

Such a wholesome town.

Mr. Wilson

——which has been a great laugh to the Opposition, particularly to Deputies Kenny, Coveney and Gilmore.

Mr. B. Hayes

Admiral Wilson.

Mr. Wilson

The Fine Gael Party has no Oireachtas representation in County Cavan, so they think they can scoff at us. The local elections are coming up and the people of Cavan have long memories.

Mr. B. Hayes

Do they have a swimming pool up there yet?

Mr. Wilson

The Labour Party does not exist in most counties, and that is particularly so in County Cavan. I put those Senators on the other side of the House on notice that the people of Cavan have long memories.

Senators Norris and Ryan spoke about landlocked County Cavan. Senator McHugh, from the top of County Donegal, spoke about the ridiculous situation of placing the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources in County Cavan.

Mr. B. Hayes

Do they have a swimming pool up there yet?

Mr. Wilson

Two Senators opposite had an interest in the European elections, and I am glad they are not pursuing that because the Common Fisheries Policy was decided in Brussels which is 1,000 miles from the North Sea.

Mr. Mooney

Hear, hear.

Mr. Wilson

Cavan is 40 miles from the nearest sea.

Mr. B. Hayes

And getting further away.

Mr. Wilson

There is more to the marine portfolio than the sea. There are the inland waterways which this Government does not forget about, but which those on the other side of the House do not even know exist. The River Shannon rises in County Cavan and flows all the way down to County Limerick.

Mr. Treacy

We are grateful for that too.

Mr. Wilson

We have plenty of natural resources apart from just gypsum mines, particularly the natural resource of our proud people. For communications, we are second to none. Let us lay this myth to rest, once and for all — an argument based on the county being landlocked is nonsense. We will deliver the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources to Cavan town in three years, no matter what Senator O'Toole says.

Mr. Mooney

Go and follow that.

Mr. B. Hayes

One cannot call Senator Wilson a wet.

Ms O'Meara

I wish to share my time with Senator Ulick Burke.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Ms O'Meara

I thank Senator Wilson for the geography lesson. It is indicative of how decentralisation is viewed. It has become highly politicised, which is a pity because it is an important issue.

Mr. Treacy

Will the Senator tell us of the Nenagh success story?

Ms O'Meara

I welcome decentralisation in principle and it is an excellent idea. The Minister of State referred to Nenagh. I am the first to acknowledge that the decentralisation of some sections of the Revenue Commissioners and the Department of Agriculture and Food there has done nothing but good for the town. I look forward to the further decentralisation of different Departments to both Roscrea and Thurles. Decentralisation has a major impact on rural towns.

However, there are concerns about this particular programme, especially the failure to line it up with the spatial strategy and how it will work in practice. There is also concern about how the Departments are moved out of Dublin and how the policy sections of the Departments can work. With Departments 100 miles from Dublin, how will the need for Ministers to have civil servants around when the Dáil is sitting be reconciled? Will there be a massive bill for civil servants' travel expenses? In the weeks after the programme was announced, I was informed by a PO from a particular Department that none of the POs was interested in moving. This will result in the extraordinary situation where they will be left in Dublin and a number of such posts will be created in the Department's new location. Will there be duplication? How will the promotion process work? If the decentralisation programme works, I hope there will be a career path within a county, for example in the Department of Defence in County Tipperary.

Dr. Mansergh

I believe it is the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform.

Ms O'Meara

I am sure other Senators will be familiar with the phenomenon where a person is happy to take a position in Nenagh but when promotion comes up, they must move to Portlaoise, Limerick or commute to Dublin. How will this work in practice because I am not sure it has been thought through? It reflects the highly politicised nature of the programme. It certainly looks likes jobs for the boys and girls, when viewed in the context of the abolition of the Local Appointments Commission. If 200 jobs are made available in Thurles, for example, and the appointments are to be made by the Minister, the obvious public concern is that it will be highly political.

Nobody will have a problem with the principle of decentralisation. However, its operation, the reasons behind it and the manner in which it will work cause concern.

Mr. U. Burke

I wish to share my time with Senator McHugh.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Mr. U. Burke

There has been no planning or consultation regarding the decentralisation programme. Before it ever gets off the ground, it has failed. Recently, the Minister for Agriculture and Food, Deputy Walsh, introduced legislation which subsumed An Bord Glas into Bord Bia. I am surprised the Minister of State is so astonished. Up to ten jobs from An Bord Glas were listed by the Minister for Finance, Deputy McCreevy, as going to Enniscorthy. Now we find that An Bord Glas no longer exists.

Mr. Treacy

Bord Bia is going there.

Mr. U. Burke

How can the public, particularly those in An Bord Glas, ever understand or accept the sincerity behind the moves of this Government? I welcome the fact Loughrea is listedas a location for part of the Department of Transport.

Mr. Treacy

And Ballinasloe.

Mr. Moylan

What about Knock?

Mr. U. Burke

However, we have been waiting five years, so why now the rush?

Mr. McHugh

I congratulate Senator Wilson on his passionate contribution. Maybe he should stay away from scripted speeches because, when he does, he offers more colour to the debate.

I want to be equally parochial out of the sheer jealousy of County Cavan getting the headquarters of the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources. However, I wish to be constructive in my contribution. Letterkenny is a gateway town, setting itself up as a centre of excellence — departmental officials should take note — in IT. Three years ago, the Taoiseach said that of all the local authorities, Donegal County Council is the front runner for IT development, which is the result of the ERNACT committee and the cross-Border link between Derry and Letterkenny. Derry has already been highlighted in our gateway status.

Mr. Treacy

To where does the Senator want us to decentralise?

Mr. McHugh

We are trying to build critical mass for IT infrastructure. We already have the Letterkenny Institute of Technology, which is a very good centre. Another 830 jobs out of the 1,300 are to be located and I am telling theMinister for Finance that Letterkenny is the key town. It is a gateway and we want to take the spatial strategy seriously, but like the Chelsea football team, it is great only on paper.

Dr. Mansergh

I welcome the positive note on which this debate is ending. I believe thatpractically all the Opposition Senators are infavour of the principle and want to see thepractice of decentralisation. Senator O'Meara was not here when I made my speech but her leader was exceptionally negative about decentralisation.

Mr. McCarthy

It is buying votes.

Dr. Mansergh

I hope that she and Senator McCarthy will influence him to take a more positive approach.

Mr. McCarthy

It is a way to purchase votes.

Dr. Mansergh

Those of us who believe in decentralisation want to see it happen and carried through regardless of changes in Government in the future. We must redistribute growth and wealth in this country. The latest income-GDP figures show Dublin at 117%, the midlands at 86% and the south east at 88%. It does not exactly coincide with the BMW region.

Mr. U. Burke

Did the Senator look up what the ESRI said?

Dr. Mansergh

The pressures on Dublin are becoming intolerable and we must do something about the lopsided growth. The point was made that we were not paying enough attention to regional distribution. We have done much more on that point. I looked at the figures for the rainbow coalition when it was in Government. Almost all the industrial investment between 1995 and 1997 went to the greater Dublin area. That was a real problem. At least with the setting up of the BMW region that has been somewhat redressed. Decentralisation is one of the best ways to continue this development. It is complementary to, and consistent with, the national spatial strategy. It is one of the best means of achieving balance. In all the towns chosen for decentralisation there is a great deal stirring in the undergrowth. People are inquiring about houses and there is an upsurge. A point was made about the project not being costed. The sites must be chosen and the cost of sites and buildings must be negotiated. How can one possibly put an accurate cost on that aspect? In the late 1980s decentralisation was adopted——

Mr. U. Burke

Before they had planning permission.

Dr. Mansergh

——by Senator MacSharry's father as a cost-cutting measure. In other words, it would reduce the cost of running the public service rather than increasing it so I would not be overly worried about that point.

Mr. Treacy

Sherry FitzGerald sold the sites.

Dr. Mansergh

Senator Ulick Burke mentioned that there was no planning or consultation. There were hundreds of submissions from almost every town in Ireland and if that is not consultation——

Mr. U. Burke

The Government did not read them. It did not know from where they came.

Ms O'Meara

There was no consultation with the people involved.

Mr. McCarthy

There was no consultation.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Please allow Senator Mansergh to speak without interruption.

Dr. Mansergh

The Minister said he received 680 proposals. That is plenty of consultation. People are only too eager to be consulted. In social partnership terms, the principle of decentralisation has been broadly agreed and I have no doubt the social partnership mechanisms will find ways of implementing it.

The Seanad divided: Tá, 22; Níl, 32.

Tá

Bannon, James.
Bradford, Paul.
Browne, Fergal.
Burke, Paddy.
Burke, Ulick.
Coghlan, Paul.
Coonan, Noel.
Cummins, Maurice.
Feighan, Frank.
Finucane, Michael.
Hayes, Brian.
Higgins, Jim.
McCarthy, Michael.
McDowell, Derek.
McHugh, Joe.
Norris, David.
O'Meara, Kathleen.
O'Toole, Joe.
Phelan, John.
Ryan, Brendan.
Terry, Sheila.
Tuffy, Joanna.

Níl

Bohan, Eddie.
Brady, Cyprian.
Brennan, Michael.
Callanan, Peter.
Cox, Margaret.
Daly, Brendan.
Dardis, John.
Feeney, Geraldine.
Fitzgerald, Liam.
Glynn, Camillus.
Hanafin, John.
Kenneally, Brendan.
Kett, Tony.
Kitt, Michael P.
Leyden, Terry.
Lydon, Donal J.
MacSharry, Marc.
Mansergh, Martin.
Minihan, John.
Mooney, Paschal C.
Morrissey, Tom.
Moylan, Pat.
O'Brien, Francis.
Ó Murchú, Labhrás.
O'Rourke, Mary.
Ormonde, Ann.
Phelan, Kieran.
Ross, Shane.
Scanlon, Eamon.
Walsh, Jim.
White, Mary M.
Wilson, Diarmuid.

Tellers: Tá, Senators U. Burke and McCarthy; Níl, Senators Moylan and Minihan.

Amendment declared lost.

Motion put and declared carried.

Seanad Éireann díospóireacht - Wednesday, 11 Feb 2004

Regional Development: Motion.

Seanad Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 11 Feb 2004