Government agrees to debate decentralisation

The Government is to allow its decentralisation programme be debated by the Oireachtas Finance Committee.

The announcement by the Tánaiste, Ms Harney, in the Dáil today came in the wake of criticism from the Labour Party who claimed the Government majority on the committee had deliberately obstructed a proposal to hold hearings on the issue.

Earlier the Minister of State at the Department of Finance,  Mr Tom Parlon, rejected concerns by senior civil servants that the Government was proceeding with decentralisation without proper consultation or analysis.

Mr Parlon said an implementation group was already in place to deal with the issues being raised and that every department has "developed its own detailed implementation plan".

Speaking on RTÉ Radio, he said decentralisation would "enhance effectiveness in public administration" and would be positive for Dublin and the State.

Under the Government's programme more than 10,000 public sector posts are to be moved from Dublin by the end of 2007.

But the Association of Higher Civil and Public Servants (AHCPS) has called for a fundamental review of the scope and timescale of the scheme.

The union's general secretary, Mr Sean O'Riordan, says his union was promised meetings at ministerial level to deal with its concerns which "have never materialised".

Mr O'Riordan says "nobody wants to listen to the rational case that aspects of the Government's programme just don't make sense".

However, Mr Parlon claimed the Government was listening to its civil servants and that his "door was open" for meetings.

He claimed the reason the Oireachtas Finance Committee had not yet reviewed the Government's programme for decentralisation was simply a matter of "timing" and that the issue was being used as a "political football" prior to the last election.

But Labour's finance spokeswoman, Ms Joan Burton, accused Mr Parlon of "grossly misrepresenting" the facts.

Ms Burton said: "The suggested review was explicitly voted down by Government members. . . . It had nothing to do with any time factor and everything to do with the Government's refusal to allow a serious public examination of its ill advised policy."