A rant about decentralisation

ishmael whale

http://www.fiannafail.ie/archive_article.php4?id=2626

A statement issued by Billy Kelleher TD, Deputy Government Chief Whip on 25/01/2004 (in answer to Pat Rabitte) attempts to maintain a case for decentralisation. Leaving aside his barrel scraping argument about letting civil servants ‘move away from the high prices of Dublin’ (care and feeding of the civil service is, of course, the main purpose of government), he essentially makes two points:

1. Decentralisation will correct regional inequality/imbalance
Clearly it will not. Deciding on a few poles for growth which might act as a counterbalance to Dublin might, but the scattering of government offices around is more of the same failed ‘scatter’ approach to regional development that underwrites the continued concentration of growth in the Dublin region. Disintegration of the civil service does not address this failure

2. Decentralisation will benefit the locations officials are moving to
There may be some short term gain, but the price is a loss of effectiveness and efficiency in the public administration of the country. If it costs more to do the same thing, and the same thing is done badly, overall welfare is reduced. It also impacts competitiveness at the time of EU enlargement.

Business and Finance of 15th January has an article by Bernd Reinhard of the German-Irish Chamber of Commerce, on the German experience with splitting their federal government between just two locations, as a caution to the proposed Irish decentralisation involving an additional 50 centres.

Movement of 13,000 staff from Bonn cost €14bn, not including cost of staff relocation. They spent €250m on video conferencing equipment before discovering this would not eliminate the need for face to face meetings. In addition to rail travel, staff clock up 12,000 flights between the two locations every month. This should give pause to blind faith that technology negates any problems with decentralisation, or that costs can be covered by selling a few offices.

In the Western Development Commission’s press release launching their ‘Jobs for Towns’ report they say: “ .. the relocation of the Government Department in Knock will increase demand for public transport and direct access, in particular, to Dublin. This could be facilitated by re-opening the Charlestown to Claremorris section of the rail network, thereby linking Knock/Charlestown to the Capital in the short term, whilst strategically completing part of the Western Rail Corridor.”

It would be interesting to know how they square the view that the relocation of a department to Knock will involve so much ongoing travel that it will justify reopening a rail line with the contention, ironically repeated in the report the release launches, that modern communications make physical location unimportant. Unfortunately the WDC don’t answer their emails, perhaps further evidence that ICTs are not a panacea. We have to speculate what reasoning, if any, went into their statement.

gandalf

Decentralisation when planned correctly would work quite well here in Ireland. What would be needed is a properly planned and co-ordinated scheme to allow this.

For example we could have the Dept of Marine, Communications and Natural Resources somewhere like Galway or maybe in Cork beside the new Marine Institute they are building there. To prove how messed up the governments plans are all you have to look at is the location for this one particular department, Cavan !!!

This Decentralisation scheme is a cynical effort to minimise damage to FF & the PD's election prospects in the Local and European elections ("hey look at us we got you a Government Department we can't be all that bad"). It will more than likely be a waste of tax payers monies (no surprise there), will be badly planned and impliemented and will cause industrial strife within the Civil Service on a large scale.

Gandalf.

mr_angry

I disagree.

1. Decentralisation will correct regional inequality/imbalance
Clearly it will not. Deciding on a few poles for growth which might act as a counterbalance to Dublin might, but the scattering of government offices around is more of the same failed ‘scatter’ approach to regional development that underwrites the continued concentration of growth in the Dublin region. Disintegration of the civil service does not address this failure

I agree that government decentralisation will not fix this entire problem, but regionalisation will provide greater access to government services in other areas, and consequently force an improvement in local infrastructure, and stimulate local enterprise.

2. Decentralisation will benefit the locations officials are moving to
There may be some short term gain, but the price is a loss of effectiveness and efficiency in the public administration of the country. If it costs more to do the same thing, and the same thing is done badly, overall welfare is reduced. It also impacts competitiveness at the time of EU enlargement.

There's no reason to suggest that there will be greater inefficieny in the public sector because of regionalisation given the state of current communications technology. Of course, there is no guarantee that it will be implemented correctly by our woefully backward government, but I think its unfair to dismiss it out of hand. If they were to actually research and implement the correct technologies, efficiency could actually be improved!

oscarBravo

I really don't see that there's much point debating this subject. Ishmael has repeatedly demonstrated that he is interested only in the overall economy as an abstract academic exercise, and that the actual people who live in it are at best an annoying distraction.

Sparks

Originally posted by oscarBravo
Ishmael has repeatedly demonstrated that he is interested only in the overall economy as an abstract academic exercise, and that the actual people who live in it are at best an annoying distraction.

So is Ishmael's real name Ahern, Brennan, McDowell or McCreevy?

ishmael whale

I have no great problems with Gandalf’s contribution. Mr Angry might consider that this initiative as planned will not provide greater access to government services. If this was true decentralisation – moving functions to regional authorities, allowing them to control resources within there own area – that would be one thing. However what is intended is scattering individual fragments of departments around, which if anything moves government further from the people. The scattering is so wide that no one place emerges with a compelling case for infrastructural development.

The German experience does suggest that there's reason to suggest that there will be greater inefficiency in the public sector because of regionalisation, and that technology is not a certain solution. Certainly there’s a long distance to go before saying that efficiency could actually be improved.

Oscarbravo is, unfortunately, trying to pretend that using the terms ‘abstract academic’ and ‘actual people’ as slogans can cloak the failure of existing policies to do anything more than assure that growth continues to be centred on Dublin, and his failure to suggest a workable alternative. Maybe, like Joe Stalin, he reckons a single death is a tragedy but a million deaths is a statistic.

oscarBravo

Originally posted by ishmael whale
Oscarbravo is, unfortunately, trying to pretend that using the terms ‘abstract academic’ and ‘actual people’ as slogans can cloak the failure of existing policies to do anything more than assure that growth continues to be centred on Dublin, and his failure to suggest a workable alternative.

...as opposed to the raft of workable alternatives you've suggested?

[ Maybe, like Joe Stalin, he reckons a single death is a tragedy but a million deaths is a statistic.

Or maybe I reckon that the death of an entire region (defined a little more narrowly than "everything outside Dublin") is a bigger tragedy.

bonkey

Originally posted by ishmael whale
...cloak the failure of existing policies to do anything more than assure that growth continues to be centred on Dublin,

Perhaps you could explain then how several of these "failed" decentralisation projects have led to Ennis becoming the fastest growing town in the country for a number of years, as well as bringing a massive amount of external investment, resulting in almost indescribable improvements on what could only be described as a slowly-decaying, living-in-the-past town some years previously?

Between the location of Moneypoint, the decentralisation of several government facilities to the town, Ennis went from a dying town to one of the most rapidly growing in the nation. This gave it the impetus it needed to go out and "win" the Technology Town award, which - despite never truly living up to its promise - gave the final shove to cause Ennis to have the fastest-growing population as well as the fastest-climbing house-prices (although that may have been "fastest climbing outside Dublin) for a number of years?

Stunning failure there, alright...which lends credence to OB's point. In the last discussion on decentralisation, you started by opposing the concept in its entirety. You now appear to have backed away from that, and yet still can't help but claim that it has never been anything but a failure, which is patently false.

jc

ishmael whale

I have no essential problem with Dublin being chosen as the only centre for development. But if we do this we should plan on that basis. A lot of people are not happy with the idea that Dublin would be the only centre. I’m only aware of one workable alternative, which is to pick a small number of centres that might become alternatives to Dublin. Inaction means continued growth for Dublin as does continuation of the ‘spread so thinly it makes no difference’ approach, continued by the proposed decentralisation.

The national spatial strategy analysis reckons that if recent trends continue, up to four-fifths of the population growth in the State could take place in or in areas adjoining the Greater Dublin Area over the next twenty years. Little lights like Ennis do little to shake this essential truth, and high percentage increases from a small absolute base are misleading. Jobs that go West tend to concentrate in Galway. Other areas are stagnant. If regional policy was working, there would be no push to disintegrate the civil service in an attempt to get jobs into the regions.

So what’s your alternative? Has anybody an alternative? Or do you think that wandering off like Oscarbravo muttering ‘real people, real actual people, not computer generated simulations, but bona fide, real, actual people’ is an alternative?

I’m not entirely clear what Oscarbravo means by “maybe I reckon that the death of an entire region (defined a little more narrowly than "everything outside Dublin") is a bigger tragedy”. While your instinct may be towards avoidance by saying something like “I can see that”, hopefully you might clarify this by:

1. Firstly, just letting us know what you are saying. Declining regions are a bigger tragedy than what?

2. Assuming you are just saying that you think regional decline is a bad thing, how does this add to finding a solution? Do you think that standing on the sidelines saying ‘this is all just terrible’ is a valid contribution?

oscarBravo

Originally posted by ishmael whale
Assuming you are just saying that you think regional decline is a bad thing, how does this add to finding a solution? Do you think that standing on the sidelines saying ‘this is all just terrible’ is a valid contribution?

Me? I'm building a community broadband network in an attempt to bring 20th-century communications infrastructure to a rural community that's considered "commercially unviable" by telecoms companies that obviously think the same way you do.

Maybe that's just standing on the sidelines muttering, by contrast to the epic contribution you're making, but since you haven't told us what your master plan is, it's hard to tell.

You tell us that if things go on as they are, all growth will inevitably concentrate on Dublin. If we work really, really hard, maybe we'll be able to salvage a few crumbs for Cork and Limerick. The rest of the country is just going to dissolve into a morass of unsustainability one way or the other, leaving us peasants with the choice of either staying here to eke out a poor existence, or moving to one of the new super-cities (a choice you have graciously acknowledged is our right to make - for which, one assumes, we should be grateful).

I'm going to keep working on my community network until I hear something more positive, thanks.

cyclopath2001

Many could agree that decentralisation is a Good Thing, but is the current approach the best way to accomplish it?

Will government assertions about the attractiveness of the proposition to staff come true? Will Dept of Communications be wooed by promises of 'Superb Office Accomodation and Car Parking'?

What about the disruption to the skills-base in the civil service & the disillusionment caused by derailed careers? Will that be worth it?

What if this turns out to be a cynical exercise to dent public service morale so they'll agree to something less outrageous?

ishmael whale

Oscarbravo

Your choice of words like ‘crumbs’ and ’peasants’ has more to do with your sensitivities that anything I’m saying. I take it your statement “a choice you have graciously acknowledged is our right to make - for which, one assumes, we should be grateful” is an echo from my statement in another thread that people can make their own minds up as to where they want to live, which you weirdly said amounted to enforced migration or somesuch.

I don’t know what you expect in terms of a ‘master plan’ as you put it, but stripping it of emotive language you have summarised the essential position. Growth will tend to concentrate on Dublin, and this will remain the situation unless some other centre emerges that can compete with Dublin. This is not just some fantasy of mine. It is the analysis of the national spatial strategy, confirmed by practical experience to date. No-one has really addressed this point and, while your community broadband network may be a valuable project for your locality, suddenly lumping it onto the table in this discussion still doesn’t address this point.

It equally doesn’t address the main issue in this thread, which is the proposed disintegration of the civil service. Some contributors are acknowledging that, whatever they feel about the principle of decentralisation and how it might properly be done, what's actually proposed is poorly thought out. From my perspective, that's at least a start.

oscarBravo

Originally posted by ishmael whale
I take it your statement “a choice you have graciously acknowledged is our right to make - for which, one assumes, we should be grateful” is an echo from my statement in another thread that people can make their own minds up as to where they want to live, which you weirdly said amounted to enforced migration or somesuch.

I didn't equate choice with forced migration, and once again it's disingenuous to suggest that I did. I made the point that your vision of the future, with all growth centered on at most three cities, would leave little real choice but to migrate to where the jobs are at.

I don’t know what you expect in terms of a ‘master plan’ as you put it

I expect that in the midst of criticising others for having nothing positive to contribute, you'll contribute something positive.

Growth will tend to concentrate on Dublin, and this will remain the situation unless some other centre emerges that can compete with Dublin.

None of which is worth a damn to those who live outside those centres.

This is not just some fantasy of mine. It is the analysis of the national spatial strategy, confirmed by practical experience to date. No-one has really addressed this point and, while your community broadband network may be a valuable project for your locality, suddenly lumping it onto the table in this discussion still doesn’t address this point.

It's never going to address anything you consider a valid point, because it's not going to turn this area into a city. It might, however, make a contribution towards allowing people to choose to continue to live and work here.

It equally doesn’t address the main issue in this thread, which is the proposed disintegration of the civil service. Some contributors are acknowledging that, whatever they feel about the principle of decentralisation and how it might properly be done, what's actually proposed is poorly thought out. From my perspective, that's at least a start.

I have reservations about the current approach to decentralisation, but they are overshadowed by my feelings towards your proposed centralisation.

ishmael whale

Whatever your own picture might be, this is actually the first time you have clearly made the point that your problem is that with growth centered on at most three cities, there would be little real choice but to migrate to where the jobs are. Fine, but remember the alternative is growth centred on Dublin.

My perspective is not that I’m criticising others, without contributing something myself. I am stating a choice needs to be made between one centre growing or a few centres growing, which is supported by third party research. I have seen several contributions to the effect that this is an uncomfortable reality for many people, but no-one suggesting that there is a third option. Supporting regional development is one thing, but throwing good money after bad because we can’t face uncomfortable truths is another.

If your community broadband network allows some people to choose to continue to live and work in your locality, fine, that’s their choice. My problem is with government doing dumb things in the regions that waste resources with little, no or negative benefits.

Your last point feels like evasion. Recall again, its not my proposed centralisation. More growth for Dublin is simply the unplanned outcome of spreading resources too thinly. If we continue to spread too thinly, then we get more growth for Dublin. So, to the extent that you support the continuation of the existing approach, you are supporting a policy that sustains a Dublin-centric outcome.

However, the main point I’m interested in here is the disintegration of the civil service. If you have reservations about the proposed decentralisation, and I have reservations about the proposed decentralisation is there any need to disagree on this particular point?

jd

These issues came up before 30 years ago in the Buchanan Report. And it was shelved because it recommended just 3 big centres in Ireland. The "losers (as they precived themselves)" kicked up a fuss, essentially because they thought that concentrated develoment in , say , Galway, would mean their local town (Sligo, Atlone, whatever) would suffer. So what resulted-concentrated development in Dublin. The maddening thing is all those smaller regional towns would be in a better position now if the Buchanan report had been implemented. But it wasn't because of small town begrudgery

ishmael whale

Let’s hope the first story fits into the Yes Minister category of “believe nothing until its officially denied.”

From Ireland.com breaking news 28-1-04
Ahern denies claim of 'rethink' on decentralisation
By Kilian Doyle

The Taoiseach, Mr Ahern, has denied the Government plan to decentralise 10,000 civil servants is undergoing a "rethink" due to a poor response.

Last month, a number of Department secretaries general expressed reservations about plans to relocate the public servants. Only around 10 per cent of the 10,000 staff involved have indicated a willingness to move to the proposed 53 locations in 25 counties.

However, in response to a question from the Labour Party leader, Mr Pat Rabbitte, in the Dáil this morning, the Taoiseach insisted the proposal was not being reconsidered.

"I wish to assure Deputy Rabbitte that he's wrong ... there is no rethink," he said. Mr Ahern added there were no plans to move any staff from his department under the plan, noting the Central Statistics Office, which is under his direction, was already situated in Cork.

Mr Rabbitte claimed there was "widespread dissatisfaction" within the civil service about the proposals.

Mr Ahern said he was unaware of any dissatisfaction within his department, but said 36 people were on the transfer list, seeking a move out of Dublin.

According to figures released to Fine Gael under the Freedom of Information Act, only 42 of the Department of Agriculture's 1,100 staff in Dublin are willing to move, while only 29 of 424 respondents among the 450 staff in the Department of Communications said they would leave the capital.

The Minister for Finance, Mr McCreevy, has ruled out compensation for civil servants agreeing to move from Dublin.

Irish Independent Wednesday January 28th 2004
Enterprise Ireland staff not keen to leave Dublin

JUST two out of 237 Siptu union members surveyed who work in Enterprise Ireland said they would be happy to move out of Dublin to Shannon as part of the Government's decentralisation plan.
Siptu branch secretary Owen Reidy said: "The overwhelming majority of our members are saying they desire to stay in Dublin. We welcome the fact that Mr McCreevy is saying any moves are voluntary - and we will hold him to that."

Gerry Shanahan of Amicus, which represents professional and technical staff and is the other big union in Enterprise Ireland, said: "With the scant information we have received, I am not getting a lot of enthusiasm about moving."
Tom Lyons
© Irish Independent
http://www.unison.ie/irish_independent/ & http://www.unison.ie/

LFCFan

There will be no decentralisation. McGreedy only announced it during the budget so there would be something else to talk about instead of his woeful budget. What has decentralization got to do with the budget anyway? We're seeing now already within a month of the announcement that they are having a re-think. This re-think will go on till after the local and european elections and they will then announce that the plans are flawed and won't go ahead or maybe in a smaller capacity. You should all know by now that the current government have no interest in making Ireland any better and only interested in their bank balance and great big pensions they are gonna get. I for one can't wait till the day when FF and the PD's are no longer sitting on their big fat arses in Leinster house screwing up this country any more than it already is.

ishmael whale

”Engineers criticise decentralisation plans
online.ie
2004-02-23 08:20:03+00
A group of engineers have criticised the Government's decentralisation plans, claiming they will breed inefficiency.

The group of engineers, architects, planners and surveyors said the plan to move 10,000 civil servants out of Dublin and into the regions would be a disaster.

It claimed Government departments would find it expensive and more difficult to co-operate if they were situated hundreds of miles apart.”

It may seem a bit quaint that a ‘group of engineers’ would take issue at the government’s decentralisation. I take it this story relates to the open letter from the Presidents of The Institution of Engineers of Ireland, The Royal Institute of the Architects of Ireland, The Irish Planning Institute, The Royal Town Planning Institute (Irish Branch, Southern Section) and The Society of Chartered Surveyors, which concludes:

"We support the Government’s commitment to decentralisation, and to balanced
regional development. Furthermore, we readily acknowledge the important role that
decentralisation of government offices can play in realising this goal. We believe,
however, that the proposals announced in December need to be modified if they are
not to adversely affect sustainable economic and social progress, and the effective
functioning of government. We are concerned that they will undermine the objective
of Balanced Regional Development enshrined in the NSS, erode the efficient
coordination of public and private investment, including infrastructure, and result in
a reduction in the quality of policy formulation by government, especially at Inter-
Departmental level. Overall, we believe there should be agreed mechanisms to
ensure the quality of the delivered project including issues such as sustainability."

The URL of the original document is: http://www.iei.ie/Home/docs/Decentralisation.pdf

cruiserweight

For example we could have the Dept of Marine, Communications and Natural Resources somewhere like Galway or maybe in Cork beside the new Marine Institute they are building there. To prove how messed up the governments plans are all you have to look at is the location for this one particular department, Cavan !!!

So the department of forestry should be in the middle of a forest. So where we are going wrong is that for years the departmant of agriculture was in Dublin and not in a field. At least the department of transport is beside a road.[

ishmael whale

While you are right that its not a point to be laboured, I think the key concern is accessibility of a Department to its clients. Agriculture already has a network of local offices, while its headquarters in Dublin is accessible from all regions and close to airport for connection to Europe. When broken up and sent to Portlaoise, it will be less accessable to most of its clients. The same can be said of the other planned moves, but the example of Marine in Cavan is particularly stark as it is not particularly accessible to any location with a maritime interest.

bonkey

Originally posted by ishmael whale
When broken up and sent to Portlaoise, it will be less accessable to most of its clients.

How so? Unless most of it clients are from Dublin city and/or abroad, Portlaoise is one of the easiest places to get to from anywhere in the country. Being on one of the few major rail-lines also adds to this.

In fact, Porlaoise has become a favourite meeting spot for ESB, because it is easier to get to than Dublin for any of the non-Dublin-based managers, and trivial to get to and from there from Dublin itself (either by road or train).

As a matter of interest, does Portlaoise qualify as part of the GDA?

I agree entirely that Cavan seems a stupid place for the Marine, though.

jc

ishmael whale

Let me admit when I made my last post I put about the same amount of thought into Portlaoise’s accessibility as the framers of the decentralisation programme, so I hadn’t considered who might find it a handy location. It is true that the rail line might make it accessible to people in Munster, and according to CSO about a third of people engaged in farming, fishing and forestry are located there. However, people depending on public transport from other regions would likely find themselves on a route through Dublin.

Still Portlaoise is not the worst location chosen. Would there be any hope that the IFA would hold their protests there instead of Dublin, or would they always want to be seen at the gates of Dail Eireann?

bonkey

Originally posted by ishmael whale
However, people depending on public transport from other regions would likely find themselves on a route through Dublin.

The only train-line which would require that is the Sligo line.

As for buses...yes, anyone from Galway or north of there would be inconvenienced, but realistically how many people who have business with the ministry travel by bus?

From a car-driving point of view, its on the way for anyone coming on the Cork/Limerick roads, and is as easy to get to as Dublin from anyone coming from the North-West.

It *might* be slightly harder than Dublin for those down the east coast....but I'm not 100% sure - they're roads I don't know too well.

Would there be any hope that the IFA would hold their protests there instead of Dublin, or would they always want to be seen at the gates of Dail Eireann?

Doubt it. That wouldn't inconvenience half as many people !!!

jc

ishmael whale

http://www.iei.ie/Home/docs/Decentralisation.pdf

I did a quick check on Iarnrod Eireann's website looking for a train from Wexford to Portlaoise between 6.00am and 12 noon - its online timetable routed me through Dublin. But, indeed, location in Portlaoise's case is not fatal. But bear in mind why, i.e. location close to Dublin and on a major transport route covering both Limerick and Cork. Few of the other proposed locations can claim similar advantages.

The letter issued by the Institute of Engineers and others (at the link above) gives a reasonable summary of the issues. The group also express concern about the impact on the commercial property market. I don’t doubt people in the property sector might find this a concern, and I’ve no objection to anyone earning an honest crust. However the rest of us would not necessarily regard cheaper commercial property as a bad thing.

The issues of general interest can be summarised as

1. Conflict with National Spatial Strategy, perpetuating the problem that trying to spread investment too thinly means, in practice, that development concentrates in Dublin.

2. Impact on effective policy making/customer service - decentralisation complicates face-to-face contact involving several Departments on cross cutting issues, and increases costs and time for those Departments and for national representative bodies.

3. Infrastructure costs and planning the immediate costs incurred in providing for the needs of the decentralised offices and personnel will be at the expense of other necessary investment.

Their own proposal is to start by locating the headquarters of one pilot Department outside Dublin and evaluate the experience. This would sound very sensible, before we take any more costly steps.

bonkey

Originally posted by ishmael whale
Few of the other proposed locations can claim similar advantages.

Agreed.....I just found it amusing that you picked perhaps the poorest example on location.

The letter issued by the Institute of Engineers and others (at the link above) gives a reasonable summary of the issues.

Actually, I'm surprised that you posted that, considering that while critical of the specifics of this round, they state that they are comitted to decentralisation in principle, no? This seems to be somewhat at odds with your chosen position that the research shows - and thus the most-educated position we can take - is that decentralisation is effectively a lost cause and a waste of money.

Their own proposal is to start by locating the headquarters of one pilot Department outside Dublin and evaluate the experience. This would sound very sensible, before we take any more costly steps.

But some departments have been successfully moved outside DUblin, and have been of benefit to where they have been moved. I have previously cited Ennis several times as an example of this.

I would be more inclined to say that what is needed is a more in-dept analysis of what has happened before - both failures and successes - to figure out what lessons are to be learned. This well may be inconclusive, but it should be - in my opinion - a pre-requisite to any further decentralisation.

But I would agree that decentralisation needs more study. In fact, I was arguing previously that there was insufficient information available to plan a proper decentralisation strategy and that more study was the first thing that was required.

Nice to see that the engineers agree with one who clearly doesn't understand the issues like I allegedly don't

I would also expect that part of any decentralisation move should include a detailed, public justification as to why any particular department is suited to re-location to its chosen destination. I'm willing to bet that the vast, vast majority of the current round of relocations would fail any such test miserably - their justifications would be a joke.

Then again...asking governments to justify projects is like asking them to put failure criteria on them*

jc

* Yes Minister reference, to those who didn't get it. It will never happen.

ishmael whale

I’m happy enough with the IEI et al letter, mainly to the extent that it questions the decentralisation programme as proposed. I take their position to be that decentralisation should be undertaken in a way consistent with the National Spatial Strategy. I do indeed think the NSS scatters too widely, and wider than its own research suggests, but better eight centres than 53.

They do indeed say that they have no problem with decentralisation of operational units. Equally they highlight that the proposed decentralisation includes headquarters and policy staff that would usually be expected to be found in the capital. They feel that splitting these staff over a number of locations complicates the co-ordination of policy between Departments. An advantage of being a small country should be that we can handle our affairs straightforwardly. We seem to be handing one of our advantages away.

Some operational departments have been moved outside Dublin, and can be deemed to be successful to the extent that they perform their functions. They may have boosted local economies to the extent that it brings a payroll to particular location. But the point (again, ala NSS research) is that such moves don’t have enough of a critical mass to change the national trend.

I know the reply might be what about Ennis, but the point is that even if one particular town is the happy recipient of a new payroll this makes no real impact on the national picture. Growth tends to concentrate in Dublin, and such growth as goes West tends to concentrate in Galway. Decentralisations to date haven’t changed this, and it would be good if Government at least consider the NSS before doing more of the same.

The NSS suggests the issue is a need to concentrate rather than decentralise, and while more study is always welcome, they have at least devoted an amount of effort to analysis of the issues. The government have ignored this and produced a decentralisation programme without any particular objective other than having something to announce in every corner of the country. As the IEI say, the proposed plan requires resources, and may be at the expense of investment in the designated NSS centres. I agree with the IEI assessment regarding the misdirecting of resources. Like the old George Bernard Shaw line, my only bone with them is the price i.e. concentrating in eight locations may be too many.