Joe O'Toole (Independent)

Such an eventuality was entirely predictable and people have been left disappointed. I am not speaking of Deputies and Senators but of local community activists, local urban councils, tidy towns committees, tourism committees and development groups. They have been assessing sites and considering whether sufficient accommodation is available for the decentralised facilities. I have visited three of those towns in the past six months, one of which has come through on the final list while the other two have not.

One can only imagine the effects of having the rug pulled from under people in these localities after waiting so long for decentralisation. This cannot be right. Situations such as these drag all politics down and the strategy becomes merely another political promise. It is fair enough for Senator Mansergh to observe that previous Governments of different complexions have promised a decentralisation strategy but did not deliver. This is a fair political point. It is fair enough for Fianna Fáil and the Progressive Democrats to say on this occasion that they are going to deliver. If they succeed in doing so by the next election, they are entitled to say that they presented a policy and achieved it to a verifiable extent.

However, a year ago, the Government promised to deliver 10,000 decentralised jobs in three years. It does not help the situation to conduct long debates in which the Government claims it did not really promise a three-year timeframe. The Government trumpeted that timeframe to the extent that it was mentioned in every discussion of the issue. I recall exactly the words that were spoken in this House and I know what people understood the Minister of State to mean. His quotes in the last week are correct. We have diagnosed all this before. I put the question to the Minister of State on two occasions whether he would put on the record that the programme could not be achieved in three years. He refused to do so. This is not about weasel words or an attempt to sort people out. The important issue is that we have failed people.

There was a significant debate in the Joint Committee on Finance and the Public Service on the question of State agencies. I told the Minister of State I had been in consultation with the relevant trade union, which indicated what was achievable in that sector. The trade union representatives raised issues that must be apparent to anyone and to Members of all parties. I welcome what the Minister of State has said today but one wonders why the amended programme had to be handed down by Mr. Flynn. The Minister of State is a bright man and can see these difficulties as clearly as I can. Why did nobody in the Government stand up and admit that it had taken a second look at the programme and realised that a longer timeframe was necessary?

One does not need to go to the wire in saying that it will take two, three, four years or whatever. I agree with the Minister of State that the timeframe does not matter. If foundations are being laid and other preparations made in a town, its residents will be aware that building may take two years and another two for employees to commence work. They can live on that hope. I would prefer to see a six-year plan implemented. People will believe that plans will actually be realised once they see progress has begun. It is in this area that the trust and confidence has been lost.

It is also fair to say that this change has given sustenance to what I call the "Dublin view", which envisages little outside the Pale. This is the perception that it is untenable to send people as far as Naas, never mind Kilkenny, Listowel, Killarney or Killorglin. The Minister of State is aware there is a strongly held view in Dublin that it is impossible to send people that far. The people who express this view include some who grew up as far from Dublin as I did. A couple of years in Dublin changes their attitude completely. It is important that we make this work. We must point out to many people in Dublin that the quality of life in provincial Ireland is every bit as good as in Dublin, and better in many cases.

Hand in hand with this proposal must go the necessary improvements to meet the infrastructure deficit. Senator MacSharry, who has spoken eloquently on this issue, must be given total confidence in the future prospect of a rail service to Sligo on an hourly basis. We will say we have a train service when we do not have to look at a timetable because we know that the train leaves at 17 minutes past the hour every hour. This must be our objective.

There will not be a difficulty recruiting staff for provincial locations. In the last decentralisation programme, the number of people who applied to move to Listowel was four times the requirement. It might be argued that some of those applying were based in Limerick. So what? Their moving to Listowel would create jobs in Limerick for others. What is important is that jobs be created in Listowel, Kilrush and Newcastle West. Eighteen months ago, I spoke in the House about a proposal from the urban councils in Listowel, Kilrush and Newcastle West to link the three towns in a development package. The package has worked to the benefit of all three towns. There is no difficulty recruiting people in those towns. There is little difficulty in persuading staff in the Department of Arts, Sport and Tourism to go to Killarney. There has been increasing interest in that location recently. When people move to smaller towns they will not go back to Dublin.

I ask politicians to have confidence in decentralisation. I cannot blame the Opposition for having a go on this issue. It has been seriously misled. Important points have been made by Opposition speakers and a political row must take place on this issue. However, once the political points have been made, I ask people to look at the broader issue and at the philosophy of urban-rural balance. We must allow people to experience the quality of life in provincial Ireland.

This morning we heard of a report from the BMW region which shows that people in Connacht spend approximately one quarter of the time commuting compared with those in Dublin. These are important issues. I recently spoke to someone who had changed jobs and now, instead of spending two and a half hours per day commuting, he spends half an hour. He suddenly finds himself with an additional two hours in every day. He has ten hours, more than a day, per week free. There are things we can offer but other things must be done to make them possible.

Today on the Order of Business, Senator Kitt brought to the attention of the House the new rail commuter service between Athlone and Galway. Developments such as this are as important as the decentralisation programme. They give a quality to decentralisation. Someone who lives on that railway line can work or go shopping in Galway without having to worry about driving or parking. The same needs to be done on the Sligo to Limerick line. Such developments are all part of decentralisation. Regional airports must also be supported. Instead of making a political row, we should all get behind this movement.

I ask for complete openness from the Government on the issue. I ask Government to tell us the problems before someone like Mr. Phil Flynn must unearth them and bring them to our attention. Can we not look at the question like reasonably open people with creative minds, see how it can best be done and make it work? Decentralisation is crucial for the future of the country. No public representative in his or her right mind could opt against it.

My colleagues who represent the Dublin area and who object to decentralisation remind me of the reactive view to traffic bypasses which was prevalent in rural Ireland 15 years ago. Dublin people, in general, are in favour of decentralisation. However, the voluntarism, which the Government now says is part of the programme, must be clearly emphasised. If it had been a central part of the debate from the beginning that no one would be forced to move and that arrangements would be made to ensure that families were not split up, there would have been much less trouble from the representative unions of the workers involved. Anyone could have foreseen these difficulties. The Minister of State and people on both sides of the House must have foreseen them. If such fears had been dealt with from the beginning we might have proceeded to a debate on the philosophy and the rights and wrongs of what we are trying to do. The Government came up with a good idea and then left the door wide open to ten solid arguments against making it happen. They included the timeframe, the family issue and the question of whether or not people would be forced, whether by whitemail or blackmail, into moving. Objectors lined up to take on the Government. We must make sure that people trust what they hear from politicians.

Those towns where decentralised Departments or agencies are located will derive a significant bonus, which has not been properly quantified. I ask the Minister of State to examine the spin-offs of decentralisation. New communities will be built. Football teams, drama clubs and local theatres and cinemas will all benefit. Decentralisation involves more than commercial development, selling houses and shopping. It also involves improving the quality of life.

The Government has utterly mishandled the issue although the Minister of State has played a blinder in the past fortnight. The media have not laid a glove on him. He has come through unscathed.