Almost 10 years ago, an editorial in this newspaper, "Paying attention to the regions", drew a letter to the editor from Mr T.J. Barrington, an expert in public administration, in which he referred to inadequacies in Government policy and attitude to the EEC.

He wrote: "£700 million is indeed a tidy price for consistently, especially over the last year, failing to pay attention to the warnings that Irish bureaucratic centralism and European regionalism are on a collision course. Perhaps if the lesson were learned, the price would be worth paying."

He also referred to a letter from a 14-year-old girl published on the same day as the editorial. Mr Barrington wrote: "The kind of European society that is now emerging aims not to drown but to liberate its citizens, subordinating central bureaucracy to decentralised democratic control. That struggle has been, in Ireland, lost in my generation. But, with great effort, it could be won in hers."

Ten years later, have any lessons been learned? Is the now 24-year-old woman living in a less centralised country? The depressing reality is that despite the enormous injection of EU funds in the past 10 years, Irish governments have not taken on board any of the vision implicit in EU policy and still maintain a collision course policy with the EU and a "not-an-inch" concession on centralism.

Those of us in the non-governmental organisation sector do not seek to supplant the politicians but we do question their effectiveness. When we see no progress on the road to genuine regionalisation, or any channel for real influence in regenerating our regions, which continue to suffer infrastructural, economic and social deficiencies, we insist that change is necessary.

That change requires that politicians agree to partnership in planning, administering and developing new, coherent regions. Anything less will result in the continued imbalance in the State's development, with resources being directed to political advantage. Resources, instead of being targeted to areas of need, will go to already overpopulated regions with a consequent further deterioration in the quality of life of the entire State.

The latest plan put to Government, which envisages a population of 1.6 million in the greater Dublin area within 10 years, is indicative of the commitment to centralism. What possible benefit can there be to denude further the regions of the west, Border and midlands, to suck their populations into a conurbation which can do nothing but create problems? The alternative, providing the necessary infrastructure in deficient areas and the right incentives for job creation, is logical, just, and in the national interest.

This will happen only by the retention of Objective 1 status in the west, Border and midlands, by providing an effective partnership in devolved administrative structures and by requiring changes in the attitudes of politicians and public servants. When we, in the Council for the West, began our campaign for the retention of Objective 1 status, we determined on two things:

1. We would at all times emphasise that our campaign was not to gain advantage at the expense of deprived black spots which exist all over the State.

2. We would ascertain at Brussels level the likely attitude of the EU and the extent to which EU Commission policies coincided with ours.

Despite attempts to foment discord between us and organisations representing the marginalised, I believe there was general acceptance of our case and that national funds, which very substantially exceed anything likely to come from Brussels, had to be directed to resolving problems in non-Objective 1 areas.

In Brussels, we found that our ideas on devolved administration were fully in keeping with Agenda 2000 and especially with the views of Regional Commissioner Ms Monika Wulf-Mathies on genuine empowered regional structures. However, we also found a strong concern that the Irish Government might delay its application for regionalisation, could make an unacceptable case and, if rejected, would blame the EU.

It did not surprise us, therefore, when Mr McCreevy stated last week that political interference in Brussels had caused the rejection of the Government's application. The Government, misleadingly, has said that the statistics of the application have not been questioned. This may well be true, but unfortunately, if Eurostat is unhappy with the reorganisation of regions it does not even have to concern itself with the numbers. If the Government can persuade Eurostat to change criteria, fine. However if it cannot, and if the Government strategy results in failure to retain full Objective 1 status for those areas whose structure and statistics stand up to Eurostat's scrutiny, then the people of those deprived areas will have reason to be very angry indeed.

The Council for the West asked the Taoiseach last November for an assurance that if Eurostat turned down the 15-county application then the Government would be in a position to, and would immediately, submit the case for the three regions, the west, Border and midlands.

But we note from reports of Mr Ahern's visit to Brussels this week that he is still pursuing the 15-county application. However, he also indicated preparedness to negotiate with Eurostat, which implies willingness to leave out Kerry and Clare, if necessary. We sent the report, which emanated from our consultative process involving the 15 counties, to Mr McCreevy and urged him to take into account our proposals for empowered local structures. His official's reply was to the effect that most of what we were proposing was encompassed in the Government's regionalisation proposals. This, of course, is nonsense.

The Government is unfortunately aware that the main Opposition parties do not favour regionalisation and is, therefore, under no domestic pressure.

Ms Wulf-Mathies distrusts the Government's sincerity on genuine regionalisation and because of that would be happy to see Ireland accept Objective 1 in transition for the whole State.

This, for us, is the appalling vista and one which has been suggested to us in numerous meetings as probably the Government's real intention all along.

In 1994, the statistics of deprivation of the west, Border and midlands regions were used to get Objective 1 status for the whole State. However, the Government subsequently did not apply the principle of cohesion in the distribution of the structural funds, as the GDP figures show. As a result, our relative position has worsened instead of improved and it is why the Government must now act positively and fairly to redress the situation. This will be done only by ensuring we retain full Objective 1 status and that the new region will be locally empowered.

The Taoiseach has said that in the upcoming Agenda 2000 negotiations nothing will be agreed until everything is agreed. In this horse-trading there lies a distinct problem for us. However, we remain hopeful we will not be another generation for whom empowered local structures and equitable treatment are denied. If we are, I doubt if anybody in 10 years' time will be interested in challenging a government in what could then be an Ireland even more hopelessly unbalanced, with administration incapable, even if willing, of remedying the ills perpetrated by the most centralised state in the European Union.

Marian Harkin is chairwoman, Council of the West.