The Minister for Finance, Mr McCreevy, will engage in a series of bilateral discussions with his Cabinet colleagues over the coming weeks in connection with the most extensive decentralisation programme ever undertaken by the State. Mr McCreevy has set himself the ambitious target of removing 10,000 civil and public servants from the Dublin region and relocating them to provincial towns and cities. In last December's budget, he spoke of moving "almost entire Government Departments"; both commercial and non-commercial State bodies will be affected.
It is imperative that proper criteria and guidelines be established to determine Government decision-making and to reassure the electorate that not alone is the decentralisation programme worthwhile, but that it is fair and transparent in its implementation. We had some recent bad examples where Ministers unashamedly transferred sections of their Departments to their own constituencies and treated them as a kind of political slush fund. That should not happen on this occasion. But there are already indications that the Government and the Minister will allow political jobbery and influence to play a significant role in determining the location of the new offices.
Mr McCreevy is understood to be preparing to announce details of what offices and agencies will be decentralised, along with their new locations, next July, but without publishing the criteria on which those decisions will be based. That would be a mistake. It would compound the weaknesses already evident in the National Development Plan for 20002006, which failed to identify major urban growth centres and permitted a continuation of ad hoc development as against coherent planning.
A lack of transparency and proper planning in the decentralisation process would also encourage public servants to resist unpopular transfers. A warning to that effect was given to the Government by the largest public service union, the CPSU, at its annual conference last week. Delegates threatened to block decentralisation plans unless details were agreed in advance. And there would appear to be no real need for rushed decisions as the planning, tendering and construction process for new offices could take from two to three years.
The series of bilateral meetings scheduled to take place between Mr McCreevy and his Cabinet colleagues over the next few weeks suggests that political clout, rather than detailed economic and social considerations, will be the deciding factors behind the relocation of Government agencies and offices. That should not happen. Objective criteria under which towns and cities might qualify should be publicised as a matter of urgency. After that, if ministers are able to make convincing cases for their constituencies, good and well. But, at a time when public confidence in politics and politicians is at a low ebb, fair and open decentralisation decisions are desperately needed.