Alex White (Labour)

The Minister for Finance has recently published a report by the decentralisation implementation group. Will the deputy leader request the Minister to attend the House for a debate on that report? Despite all the spin used to soft-soap the issue, the report shows that progress has been lamentably slow concerning the Government's so-called decentralisation programme. The report also shows that no more than 15% of a projected 11,000 civil and public servants have moved under the scheme, notwithstanding the fact that it was introduced four years ago. Does the deputy leader agree that the entire decentralisation programme was ill-conceived and deserves debate after four long years, given that it has not unfolded as planned? The House should consider this topic in the context of the public service generally.

The chairman of the Revenue Commissioners has indicated to the Minister that it would not be prudent or appropriate for Revenue computer staff to move. The Minister said he has been informed by the Revenue Commissioners that there were some business continuity issues. In plain English, however, the language used by the Minister means it has been accepted that they will not move. They are in such an important position that they cannot be compelled to move. I wonder how many other business continuity issues there are across the civil and public service that ought to be considered in this context? When can we expect to have Government proposals on real decentralisation and real reform of local government? Instead of pretending that moving civil servants out of Dublin constitutes decentralisation, which is a sham, let us have a real debate on the matter. Although it would be an advance to have elected mayors in major cities, let us hope that it will not simply amount to that because real root and branch reform of local government is required.