Dáil Éireann Debate, Wednesday - 23 June 2004
1 Mr. R. Bruton asked the Minister for Finance if any element of the present decentralisation programme is open to revision; and the way in which he intends to evaluate proposals for modification of the programme. [18843/04]
Amharc ar fhreagraBudget 2004 included details of the Departments, agencies and jobs being transferred out of Dublin and the target number of jobs for each decentralised location. It also indicated that the Government might make some adjustments to the detailed provisions where necessary to ensure continued effective delivery of public services. Up to date details of the jobs being transferred to the various decentralised locations are available on the Central Applications Facility.
Implementation of the decentralisation programme is primarily a matter for each Minister. In addition, I appointed a decentralisation implementation group and a Cabinet sub-committee on decentralisation was established as part of the overall implementation arrangements. A number of changes to the programme outlined in the budget have since been announced by my colleagues, the Ministers for Agriculture and Food and Communications, Marine and Natural Resources. These changes, which involve additional locations and the transfer of some extra jobs overall, were approved by the Cabinet sub-committee.
I have received no other proposals to revise the programme and work on its implementation is now advancing in accordance with the report of the decentralisation implementation group.
Will the Minister accept that, if a post office was being closed down in one area and moved to another location, he and his party would want an analysis done on what was happening to the people being transferred, the service being delivered, the village that was losing its service, and how this would impact on the community? Will he agree there has been no such assessment in respect of decentralisation? There has been no assessment of how decentralisation fits into regional strategy. There has been no assessment of the risks that might be posed to some of the services being provided. There has been no human resource plan in regard to the options available to people who want to stay in Dublin. Will he accept that, as a mature citizens' democracy, there must be more open hearings on how the process will operate, so that where there are ideas — I am pleased the Minister has indicated that he is willing to make adjustments where necessary — and proposals for change, there will be a process of hearings and scrutiny so that we can get a proper set of proposals which will work? Will he afford the House such a process?
It will be no surprise to the Deputy that I beg to differ substantially with him. This process has been ongoing for more than four years. Decisions were finally made and locations were announced in the run-up to the budget last December. As I said on many occasions, the process is voluntary and I believe that not only will it be good for Dublin, but it will be good for the regions. Some political parties must make up their mind whether they are for or against decentralisation. They cannot be for decentralisation when at home in their constituencies and against it when in Dublin and briefing the Dublin media.
It has been an inherent part of Government policy for some time, and it was an inherent part of the policy of the Fine Gael Party. Not long before we announced the decentralisation programme, the Leader of the Fine Gael Party tabled a Private Members' motion in this House advocating the decentralisation of 18,000 public servants. All the questions tabled by the Deputy are being considered. The Deputy and others should note that much of the cant and speak about this matter can also be found in the United Kingdom. When Sir Michael Lyons was completing his report on decentralisation for Gordon Brown, all the cant and objections in the national media in recent months were repeated in the UK and were discounted. It is always difficult to get people to change their way of thinking, but the benefits of decentralisation are obvious to everyone who has considered the matter.
If the Minister is so confident in the robustness of his case, why will he not allow a debate in the Committee on Finance and the Public Service? Why is it not open to the Oireachtas to scrutinise this wonderful proposal? He said people must decide whether they are for or against decentralisation. That is not the situation. I can be for postal efficiency but I can also say there must be certain protections when deciding what post offices to close down. Similarly, I can be for decentralisation but expect a proper spatial plan and risk assessment of the service. Families who will be disrupted should be given options and they should not be expected to enter into a lottery for their own jobs.
It is not just a simple black and white issue, it is a question of getting it right and making the changes and modifications so that the system will work and deliver quality public services. Will the Minister agree that the issue of the delivery of quality public services has rarely entered into his description of how the process will work and that consideration for the public servants affected has rarely been mentioned by him? Will he accept that we must be more mature in a citizens' democracy and deal with this as an issue that deserves scrutiny, care and attention so that it works, and not just condemn everyone who opposes him as being guilty of cant and so on?
I am pleased the Deputy has repeated his accusation. The Deputy asked why will I not allow the Committee on Finance and the Public Service debate the issue. If the matter was raised some weeks ago, others might have stepped in and said I had no hand, act or part in doing anything with the committee.
The Minister's party whipped in its votes——
The Deputy said a minute ago that I did it, and the record of the House will show this. Since I may have thought others might have taken the chance to ensure that was not repeated, I now do so. I first knew the committee was sitting that day when a vote was called in Leinster House, I was here waiting, and a member of the committee told me he had objected to a debate on the matter. That was the full extent of my knowledge that the committee was sitting. I am pleased Deputy Bruton has given me an opportunity to put that on the record, because others might have done so in recent weeks. That was the full extent of my knowledge in regard to that committee.
It was a whipped vote by the Minister's party. If he was not aware of it, he should take up the matter with the Whip.
And with his backbenchers.
The Deputy said in the House that I had something to do with the matter. I had nothing to do with it.
The Minister represents the Government in this House.
