Jim Higgins (Fine Gael)

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.