Brian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)

We will have to agree to disagree. I am not abdicating my political responsibility to see this through; the Government intends doing that. The Deputy made an argument regarding my earlier point. If I made a political decision on tax exemptions for stallions, for example, the administrative decision on implementation would be a matter for the Revenue. That does not mean that I am not accepting responsibility for that decision. One delegates functions in the interest of getting the job done effectively. If that were being dealt with simply by the Cabinet of 15 at a weekly meeting, of course we would not make progress on the matter. It must be dealt with — despite its complexity, it is being dealt with — so that the job gets done. It was never going to be the case that the job could be done overnight.

It has been suggested that my predecessor said it would all be done by 2007. He made a very clear statement on that budget night to show our seriousness and that we intend being a fair distance down the road by 2007, and he was entitled to make that statement. The Deputy knows in his heart and soul that the scheme would never have got off the starting blocks if the former Minister for Finance had gone about trying to do the job in any other way. By the same token, even on the day of the announcement, it is a voluntary scheme. We are not tearing up the industrial relations rule book but we are making it clear that a strategic decision has been taken with which I believe everybody in this House agrees, even if they do not like particular aspects of it or the way it was done. Everyone accepts that decentralisation is good for the country and the system. It has worked. It is working as we speak where we have decentralised offices. There is not a sense of dysfunction or people not being able to do their work in a collective and coherent way. That is not the case. The Revenue Commissioners have decentralised and one can now see the level of improved effectiveness and not simply because of decentralisation. The idea that this is an act of national subterfuge is an exaggerated argument. It is not correct. Decentralisation does and will work but we must be prepared to go through the process not just of consultation or determining the level of interest but the change of skills that will be required, the relocation of personnel and so on. It is a big job but it will be implemented and we stand over it.

There is an indication, based on the first series of reports, that despite what people are saying, a considerable chunk of the programme can be implemented in the foreseeable future. The chairman will report on other aspects in the spring with which one can see greater problems arising but that is not to say we should forget about it. We must work our way through this and in the reports the chairman has given me and the few discussions I have had with him on it, he is quite confident that we can work through this process. I take what he has to say with a great deal of seriousness. He is not a gentleman who would go on a wild goose chase. He has many functions but he is perhaps uniquely equipped to make the sort of progress on this issue, despite its complexity, that might otherwise not be possible. Far from it being an abdication of political responsibility by my not handling it every day of the week, that is the reason we give it to people who have those interface skills, with the legitimate staff interests involved, to try to make this happen. That is all I am saying. There was never going to be a "big bang". This was never going to be done overnight. We all knew that, although perhaps some made it look a little simpler than others but it is the right thing to do strategically. Progress is being made and we can make further progress. We intend standing over the decision in the interests of making sure that strategic decision stands.

See this speech in context