Seanad debates

Tuesday, 30 November 2004

Decentralisation Programme: Statements.

 

5:00 pm

Tom Parlon (Laois-Offaly, Progressive Democrats)

I am pleased to appear here today to address Members of the House on the Government's decentralisation programme. I would like to start by once again reiterating the Government's commitment to the full implementation of the programme. Since I last appeared here on 2 June this year, a number of key developments have occurred. The second report of the decentralisation implementation group was published at the end of July. In this report the group stated it would report to the Cabinet sub-committee on decentralisation in the autumn outlining its views on sequencing and timing. It indicated that the selection of organisations and locations for inclusion in the first phase of moves would have particular regard to the figures emerging from the Central Applications Facility and relevant property and business issues. A report containing full details of priority applications to the Central Applications Facility up to 7 September 2004 was duly published. The names of the Departments and organisations selected to move in the first phase of the programme were announced in the implementation group's report published on 24 November 2004. A further report from the group on the procurement and financial issues relating to property was published on 24 November 2004.

Both reports published last week were first submitted to my colleague, the Minister for Finance, by the decentralisation implementation group, chaired by Mr. Phil Flynn. The reports were published following the Government's approval of all the recommendations contained therein. The first report dealt with the selection of organisations or locations for inclusion in the first phase of moves. The report lists 15 Departments and offices which should be the first to relocate outside of Dublin. This involves 21 projects, 20 locations and the transfer of eight headquarters. Contrary to some media reports, the programme is being phased in as opposed to phased out.

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.