Charlie McCreevy has been a very busy man for last week or so. It's not surprising that his vocal cords have threatened to seize up. The estimates were announced, the farmers got a verbal slap and he kicked off the debate on regionalisation with a dissertation on the European Commission's fearsomely complicated policies and plans.
This last performance was his most impressive, partly because he demonstrated that he understands the intricacies of the structural funds and their dispersal, but mainly because he managed to make them understandable to those listening.
He was not alone in his level of activity. Every political party, every local authority and every local group/organisation in the country has a strong opinion on the matter. We've been having a public debate in the media, in the regions and in the Dail. Indeed I was present in Leinster House when the politicians were being lobbied, and was most impressed with the professionalism of the lobbying.
Professionalism notwithstanding, its effectiveness may be questionable. It seems to me that the Government has, in its Action Plan for the Millennium, already made the decision for the State. That document says: "Objective 1 status will be sought for the west of Ireland, for the Border regions and all other rural areas that are suffering from population decline for the post-1999 period." The usefulness of the debate was further undermined by the Minister's opening statement. He made it abundantly clear that he and the Government were foursquare behind the proposal.
"The arguments for regionalisation are compelling," he said. "The new Objective 1 region would continue to receive full Objective 1 assistance over the period and, therefore, more structural funds. It would also have access to a better State aids regime and potential access to transition after 2006."
The structural funds were originally born out of a need for the European Community to help those poorer member-states to catch up with the richer ones, in other words get rid of disparities. Courtesy of our glossy-coated big cat of an economy, the overall distance between ourselves and the rest of Europe has shrunk. So logically we need less EU funding.
Therein lies the problem. The disparity now exists within Ireland rather than within the EU.
The major domestic stories of the last couple of weeks have all been related to this fact. Gridlock, overpriced housing and increased crime in our urban and suburban zones. Enraged farmers, the continuing rural and agricultural decline and the poverty gap.
Yet our policies in almost every area encourage young people to pour into Dublin and out of rural Ireland, and when they don't have all the attractions in the rural areas it is hard to blame them for moving.
We could begin to solve many of our cities' problems by creating the two regions and investing in the poorer one.
Mind you, I have to confess to being less than impressed at the slow pace in activating the Programme for Government. I thought the next logical step would be to enact a piece of legislation which would give birth to a real regional authority system. After all we already have a working model for such a regional authority in Udars na Gaeltachta. Such an authority would have specifically elected members, who would be ineligible for election to a local authority, thus ensuring their regional focus.
But to do this the Department of Finance officials will need a training course in how to delegate. It seems to be something they all forget when they enter the hallowed halls of Merrion Street. Letting go is always difficult, but at some stage or other in our lives we all have to do it.
And now I feel is the perfect time for Finance. Give the regions the autonomy they deserve. They have the proven capacity to make sound decisions and, after all, Finance would still retain a regulatory function.
All Irish governments have consistently argued in Brussels in favour of subsidiarity; in other words, decisions made and executed as close as possible to the point of delivery. What is best decided nationally in a memberstate should be so decided. The same argument can be applied internally at home.
We're having to come to grips with a new pluralist society. There are more than enough major issues for Government to be concerned with nationally, not to have to be also concerned with specific regional issues. All State agencies have national plans; no regional plans (of course, they would deny this); but at the end of the day they all have to feed into Dublin. Consequently, many important local problems never get included in these plans and end up being ignored.
Quite apart from the EU money and the positive effects of localising decision-making, there is one other major advantage to achieving Objective I status. It would allow Government to give higher levels of industrial grants to that region. This would no doubt prove an important selling point in attracting industry.
As Charlie McCreevy pointed out, less than a quarter of the grant-aided jobs created from 1995 to 1997 went to the west, Border and midland areas that will make up the second region. That balance has to be reversed simply so those areas can remain viable.