Decentralisation

pete

Some more analysis courtesy of a PSEU document adopted at the 2005 ADC:

2.1 It would be dangerous to draw too many absolute conclusions from the outcome of the initial phase of the CAF process. All that can be said for it is that it provides an indication of the levels of interest in re-locating. Inevitably, the passage of time will result in changes in people’s preferences and intentions and inevitably also some people will have applied with only the vaguest interest in re-locating, safe in the knowledge that an application implied no commitment. Similarly, there are likely to be people with some interest in re-locating who did not, for various reasons, apply at the time. For these reasons, anything that is said about the CAF should be read as no more than a broad reflection on the levels of interest expressed.

2.2 With these qualifications in mind, the following statistics in the grades that this Union represents should be noted :

a) A total of 1,182.5 Civil Service posts at HEO and equivalent were advertised for new locations under the CAF. By 7 September, 2004, the cut-off date for priority applications, a total of 876 people had applied in these grades to re-locate to one of these locations, (74% of the number sought) *

b) A total of 1,503 Civil Service posts at EO and equivalent were advertised for new locations. By 7 September 2004, a total of 1,283 had applied in these grades (85% of the number sought) *

c) However, of the 876 people at HEO and equivalent who applied, a total of 324 were not located in Dublin and the EO equivalent figures were that of the 1,283 applicants, 621 were described as ‘Provincial’

d) This high number of non-Dublin applications brings into relief the number of Dublin-based Civil Servants who expressed interest in moving to existing locations. In all 3,350 Civil Servants located currently outside Dublin indicated an interest in re-locating but only 525 Dublin-based Civil Servants indicated an interest in moving to existing locations

e) The numbers in State Agencies who expressed an interest in re-locating was negligible. 2,345 posts were advertised in State Agencies and only 732 staff in those Agencies expressed any interest in the Programme.

f) Given the knock-on consequences for members of this Union it is worth noting that 240.5 Principal posts in the Civil Service were advertised and 92 people applied - 69 in Dublin and 23 in Provincial locations. At Assistant Principal level, 629.6 posts were advertised and 423 people applied - 314 in Dublin and 109 in Provincial locations.

* It could be dangerous to draw too many conclusions from these figures as they show the picture as a whole, whereas some locations were over-subscribed and others were under-subscribed and, in some cases, significantly so.

I'll admit I haven't read the entire document, but I have to wonder what the PSEU's basis is for stating "... the fact that we already have 3000+ members living and working outside of Dublin who would universally welcome the entire programme". In the absence of them actually surveying their membership, I fail to see how they could possibly know this.

The_Conductor

So essentially- of the vast number of Dublin based posts, for mooted decentralisation, there is a shortage of people who want to take them. Given that a lot of decentralisation issues seem to have been swept off the agenda by the PSEU standing orders committee (as per letter from Entemp branch secretary)- I think we can now safely say that the PSEU has finally decided to retreat from protecting or even pretending to advocate the interests of their Dublin based staff...... Bet you quite a few of the Departments with posts being decentralised are headed by non-Dublin based PSEU chairs? Anyone care to check.

So what exactly are your options, if, as a civil servant of a particular rank, you rely on the PSEU to represent you, when its blatantly obvious they have precious little interest in you, other than to collect their subs from your payslip?

I, for one, no longer believe that the best interests of Dublin based civil servants whose posts are being decentralised, are being represented by anyone whatsoever.........

I'm not going to moan about specific cases or circumstances- the whole bloody lot of us, civil servants, the electorate, communities- we're all down the creek.

I give up.

NewDubliner

This paper, drafted by the department of Finance has been published by the AHCPS on their web site:http://www.ahcps.ie/decentralisation/ICTPaper.doc

'7' looks like a licence to outsource, '8' looks like a threat to refuseniks & 9 signals the intention to replace most of senior management of ICT as soon as possible.

Also on '8', I'm sure that the Dublin ICT staff who are being asked to do their own jobs and train in in their replacements will be very motivated by the loss of all promotion prospects and the empty promise that they "will be accommodated as best as possible in subsequent post allocations."

AFAIK the cost of these measures has not been included in Tom Parlon's €900m.

Staffing of ICT positions for decentralisation programme
Introduction

1. The Report of the Decentralisation Implementation Group entitled “Selection of organisations/locations for inclusion in the first phase of moves” was approved by the Government in November, 2004. This Report included recommendations on the advancement of the implementation of the relocation of the ICT elements of the Department of Agriculture and Food, Social and Family Affairs, REACH, the Revenue Commissioners, CMOD and the Local Government Computer Services Board. All public bodies, however, have mission critical ICT elements and this paper should therefore be viewed as applying to all Departments/Offices.

2. The DIG Report noted that the Budget 2004 announcement of the decentralisation programme recognised the importance of ICT systems in terms of service delivery and the need for particular care in managing the relocation of these services, and the associated jobs, outside Dublin. The Group stated that it believed that the decentralisation of ICT jobs required detailed planning by individual bodies and that they would be facilitated by the development and operation of a number of central initiatives designed to help public bodies to secure the necessary staff skills and to make use of common ICT infrastructures.

Transfers
3. The need for a strong “pipeline” of ICT staff to make good any staff losses arising was one of the initiatives identified by the Implementation Group. Based on this recommendation, CMOD have worked with the relocating organisations to identify the range of initiatives that will be required to staff the ICT elements of the relocating organisations. As part of this work Departments/Offices have received full details of the numbers/grades of their ICT staff willing to transfer from the Central Applications Facility.

4. Based on the information supplied from the CAF, Departments/Offices will attempt, in the first instance, to fill ICT posts using the agreed CAF rankings. To ensure that those applicants from another Department/Office have the requisite skills to fill an ICT post, (at the same grade) the originating Department will be required to certify the applicants stated ICT skills and current role. Applicants who are currently working in a non-ICT role will, in the first instance, be required to undergo normal aptitude testing and interview for ICT posts. Successful applicants at this stage of the selection process will then be required to undergo and succeed in a certified ICT training programme before being assured of a transfer to the relocating Department.

Promotions
5. When the processes detailed at 4 above are completed it is anticipated that vacancies will still exist. In this event, Departments/Offices intend to conduct specific ICT promotion competitions (both internal and inter-departmental) to fill the shortfall in numbers willing to relocate. These competitions will be based on existing standardised ICT skill sets (e.g. the ICS skill listing). Applicants for these competitions will be required to either

(a) already have appropriate ICT qualifications and experience or
(b) commit to undergo and succeed in a certified ICT training programme as a prior condition of promotion.

It will be strict condition of all transfers/promotions under (4) and (5) above that the applicants agree to relocate to the relevant provincial locations for the agreed period appropriate to the grade.

Recruitment
6. Where sufficient staff to make up the shortfalls do not emerge from either the transfers, certified training programmes or promotions, Departments/Offices will proceed to recruit qualified, experienced ICT personnel at all grades, in accordance with the procedures agreed with the unions in the context of sustaining progress.

7. In tandem with the above, ICT Divisions will have continued freedom to go to the market to identify and employ external experts (defined as individuals with a particular expertise that would take a minimum of 2 years to develop) and contractors/consultants as stop-gap measures until sufficient numbers of internal staff with requisite knowledge and experience are in place.

8. Every effort will be made to ensure that experienced and skilled ICT staff, who have opted to remain in Dublin, and who have assisted with the decentralisation programme in terms of planning, mentoring, coaching, hand-overs, system migration, etc., will be accommodated as best as possible in subsequent post allocations.

9. Replacements for senior ICT managers who have opted to remain in Dublin, will be put in place at the earliest possible date to facilitate planning and training.

ishmael whale

NewDubliner wrote:

AFAIK the cost of these measures has not been included in Tom Parlon's €900m.

To be clear, the €900 million is just the cost of land and builidings - not IT costs, furnature, training or anything else. Just bricks and mortar.

ishmael whale

Glass cutting, map making, it’s the same business really.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2005/0504/print/waterford
485 jobs axed at Waterford Crystal

”….Mr Cullen said he would join with employee representatives, business groups and all interested parties to turn this situation around. In particular, he will be working immediately to ensure that the proposed decentralisation of Ordnance Survey Ireland to Dungarvan is accelerated…..”

RicardoSmith

ishmael whale wrote:

Glass cutting, map making, it’s the same business really.

2 funny.

ishmael whale

Sorry to post yet again, but this is just the kind of local paper suspend-your-critical-faculties-while-we-talk-bollocks story that I love. It starts by saying 96% of professionals all over Ireland would recommend a move to the North West, and goes on to say this should encourage people to decentralise.

Then you look at the detail and you see what they are actually saying is out of 50 people who sought relocation to the North West through a particular recruitment firm, 48 said they would recommend relocation to others.

Put another way, 50 people looked to move there and two now seem to regret it. Should that convince people uncertain about moving to the North West that they should change their minds? Hmmm.

http://www.westernpeople.ie/news/story.asp?j=25127
Last month, one of the country’s leading recruitment firms, Collins McNicholas, revealed that 96% of professionals throughout Ireland would recommend relocation to the North West. These figures come as a result of a survey that the recruitment firm carried out recently… The survey was conducted in January 2005 and was amongst 50 professionals who had sought relocation to the North West with the company.……”…These findings also provide timely encouragement for those considering relocating under the Government’s programme of decentralisation,….”

NewDubliner

”….Mr Cullen said he would join with employee representatives, business groups and all interested parties to turn this situation around. In particular, he will be working immediately to ensure that the proposed decentralisation of Ordnance Survey Ireland to Dungarvan is accelerated…..”

So Cullen, knowing that the staff in Dublin do not want to move their families to Waterford, is going to take their jobs away and give them to people in Waterford instead?

Victor

ishmael whale wrote:

Then you look at the detail and you see what they are actually saying is out of 50 people who sought relocation to the North West through a particular recruitment firm, 48 said they would recommend relocation to others.

You seem to be somehow mistaken.

When asked by the interviewer, in a loaded questionaire, a few people in an unrepresentative sample who really, really wanted to get a particular job, answered they would recommend the North West .

uncivilservant

ishmael whale wrote:

Glass cutting, map making, it’s the same business really.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2005/0504/print/waterford
485 jobs axed at Waterford Crystal

”….Mr Cullen said he would join with employee representatives, business groups and all interested parties to turn this situation around. In particular, he will be working immediately to ensure that the proposed decentralisation of Ordnance Survey Ireland to Dungarvan is accelerated…..”

Accelerated??!??!

There are 199 OSI posts earmarked for Dungarvan. Per the latest available figures:

• 63 of these posts are 'general administrative' Civil Service grades. 47 general service Civil Servants (12 from Dublin, 35 already in provincial locations) have 'expressed an interest' in these posts.
  
• The other 136 posts are 'Professional, Technical and Departmental grades' for which 15 serving OSI staff (14 from Dublin, 1 provincial) expressed an interest.

Doesn't take a genius to figure out why Dungarvan wasn't on the 'early movers' list....

NewDubliner

uncivilservant wrote:

There are 199 OSI posts earmarked for Dungarvan. Per the latest available figures

I think that now would be a good time for the public service unions to express sympathy with the workers in Dungarvan and to tell the minister that making Dublin workers redundant is not the way to address the problem.

NewDubliner

This just posted by the PSEU in its latest report:http://www.pseu.ie/docs/Decent30.doc.

It shows a little backbone, but the statement 'It was agreed to discuss this matter further.' should fill Dublin-based PSEU members with foreboding.

In response to a request for a statement of view regarding the paper on the decentralisation of ICT posts circulated at the last meeting, (enclosed again with this report for ease of reference), the PSEU Representative stated that there were no circumstances in which the Union could co-operate with open recruitment into ICT posts in situations where there were ICT staff surplus to requirements as a result of decentralisation and the Union would not feel bound in any way by the provisions of ‘Sustaining Progress’ on this matter as they related to skills shortages while what is in question in this case is not a shortage of skills but the forcible re-location of posts.

Furthermore, it was stated that the scale of use of contractors was unacceptable and could not be acceptable if there were surplus ICT staff. All Unions stated that the potential for lost earnings among ICT staff displaced due to decentralisation was very high and the protection of these extra earnings would have to be addressed satisfactorily.

It was agreed to discuss this matter further.

uncivilservant

NewDubliner wrote:

This just posted by the PSEU in its latest report:http://www.pseu.ie/docs/Decent30.doc.

From the same doc:

The IMPACT Representatives stated that Union’s wish to reach an agreement but noted that the document did not deal with their grades, a fact which they stated to be unsatisfactory as it reflected what was, in their view, a general neglect of the issues affecting specialist grades.

Perhaps it actually reflects is a tacit admission by "the official side" that the IMPACT grades aren't going anywhere anytime soon?

I have to say the whole process is starting to take on the appearance of a rather unseemly grab for promotions. Perhaps "the staff side" need to realise that promotions are not a panacea for every problem?

ishmael whale

Sorry, I’ve forgotten. Why is the decentralisation programme still on the table, and what makes it so much more important that just collecting tax efficiently?

http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/ireland/2005/0506/3130473142HM3REVENUE.html
Decentralisation problems listed in Revenue plan
Chris Dooley, Industry and Employment Correspondent

Major problems arising from the Government's decentralisation programme, including high costs and a potentially damaging loss of expertise, have been outlined by the Revenue Commissioners. ..... In an outline implementation plan, seen by The Irish Times, Revenue warns that relocating its IT section to Kildare could be "extremely expensive" and poses risks to its business.It also points out that only 34 staff with the necessary IT qualifications have applied to move to Kildare, leaving a "minimum shortfall" of 345.

…. It is "highly unlikely", however, that sufficient staff with the aptitudes needed would be found from within the Civil Service, while direct recruitment would add to the number of civil servants. The third option, replacing civil servants with consultants, would be extremely expensive. The plan also says it would be "unrealistic" to expect existing staff to be enthusiastic about the success of the project. "As yet they have no certainty about their own future, and are being compelled to switch from their chosen career in which the majority have striven - at considerable personal effort - to acquire third-level qualifications and highly-specialised skills…..

"The significant proportion [91 per cent] of staff to be replaced will generate a significant risk of a loss of key corporate knowledge and irrecoverable systems failure unless great care is taken in the transfer process." ... While the Government had initially planned to complete the decentralisation by the end of 2006, Revenue does not envisage beginning the IT move to Kildare, with a first-phase transfer of 103 posts, until January 2009.

NewDubliner

ishmael whale wrote:

Sorry, I’ve forgotten. Why is the decentralisation programme still on the table, and what makes it so much more important that just collecting tax efficiently?

Don't be silly! It's about politics. It's about bringing much-needed work to an area with no unemployment. It's about saving money by spending lots more money. It's about relieving Dublin traffic congestion by making cyclists & bus commuters drive to Kildare. It's about improving civil service efficiency by getting rid of skilled, experienced people. And....... it's about politics.

uncivilservant

From the Irish Times report on the Association of Higher Civil and Public Servants conference this weekend:

The decentralisation programme was sharply criticised at the conference by keynote speaker Frank McDonald, environment editor of The Irish Times.

The original estimated cost of the programme, at "over €200 million", had been revised upwards to more than €900 million, he said. This was more than "the extravagant cost" of Dublin's two Luas lines, more than the cost of "God knows how many hospital beds" and more than the cost of "the wretched M3 motorway".

"It is a complete waste of money and a misapplication of resources on a monumental scale," he said. McDonald claimed clientelism was behind the choice of location of decentralised offices made by Ministers. The aim was "to bring joy to the business community of every town - the publicans, shopkeepers, auctioneers, estate agents, car dealers and fellows with land to sell at a premium price for a new Government office block".

"Meanwhile, major Dublin buildings in danger of being divested include the Custom House and the OPW's suite of Georgian houses on St Stephen's Green."

And echoed in Garret Fitzgerald's column:

This is not to make a case against the principle of decentralisation of Civil Service administrative work, which makes good sense.

However, that concept has been turned into a bad and very expensive joke by decentralising civil servants to no less than 53 different locations, three-quarters of which are not centres that the Government had selected for development, and also by deciding to move nine Ministers and their offices away from the centre of government.

Not much serious thought has been given over how to make our political system more democratically responsive to our real social and environmental needs, rather than to interest group pressures.

NewDubliner

From "The Examiner", May 11, 2005:

Situation here is similar to that proposed for the ICT staff.

11/05/05

Civil servants to get €50m for ‘nothing’
By Mary Dundon, Political Reporter
THE State will end up paying €50 million a year to professional civil servants for doing nothing unless Junior Finance Minister Tom Parlon can find them meaningful work in Dublin, the IMPACT trade union warned yesterday.

The 850 specialist grade civil servants - mainly engineers, architects, professional valuers and Third World community development experts - do not want to move out of Dublin under Mr Parlon’s decentralisation plan. Most of these work with the Department of the Environment, which is being decentralised to Wexford, and the Department of Foreign Affairs section, which is being moved to Limerick.

Both Mr Parlon and the Taoiseach gave a commitment to civil servants who do not want to move outside Dublin that “meaningful jobs” would be found for those who wish to stay, said IMPACT national secretary Peter Nolan.

“But the problem is that these specialist professional grades cannot be easily transferred to other departments in Dublin like general civil servants because you cannot turn an engineer into an architect,” he said.

Mr Parlon will face an angry group of 850 professional servants at the IMPACT Health and Civil Service Biennial conference in Kilkenny, who want to know what jobs the Government has for them.

“They are furious at the notion they might be sitting in an office in Dublin doing nothing because the minister has not thought this plan through. As an employer, the Government has a duty of care to ensure that the professionals can maintain their skills,” said Mr Nolan.

IMPACT brought this problem to the attention of Philip Flynn, who compiled the report on decentralisation 18 months ago. “Since then there has been a wall of silence from Minister Parlon even after IMPACT told a Dáil committee that the cost of leaving these professional civil servants idle for a year would be €50m,” Mr Nolan said.

Mr Parlon will be told that 85% of IMPACT’s Health and Civil Service grades do not want to move outside Dublin and the debate will also include a motion calling for industrial action. Mr Parlon’s spokes-man could not be reached for comment last night.

ishmael whale

From "The Examiner", May 11, 2005:
THE State will end up paying €50 million a year to professional civil servants for doing nothing unless Junior Finance Minister Tom Parlon can find them meaningful work in Dublin, the IMPACT trade union warned yesterday.

And that €50 million would go a long way to meeting the costs of the shelved Leaving Cert reforms, making it possible that instead of calling it a ‘Rolls Royce’ option, the Minister might actually get the necessary resources to simply start implementing the necessary changes.

Prioritising decentralisation over all the other things that need to be done is really beyond reason.

http://www.examiner.ie/pport/web/ireland/Full_Story/did-sgQcEwxxy-kk6sg0aewFBADppk.asp

“Leaving Cert reforms may face axe over costs
By Niall Murray, Education Correspondent
PLANS for major reform of the Leaving Certificate may be shelved as expert advice to Education Minister Mary Hanafin suggests the extra teachers alone would cost €100 million a year.

Expert advice, seen by the Irish Examiner, and sent to the minister in recent weeks, spells out the true cost of introducing a scheme of continuous assessment over a three-year senior cycle.

The experts suggest:

* The extra preparation work would need up to 1,900 more teachers.

* 20% more assessment work would be required, which could add €10m to the annual running costs of the State Examinations Commission.

* A possible one-off cost of €50m to provide teachers with laptop computers.

Ms Hanafin has already described the scheme of continuous assessment over a three-year senior cycle, proposed by the National Council for Curriculum and Assessment (NCCA), as the “Rolls-Royce option………….”

NewDubliner

On the RTE TV news tonight, it's reported that Tom Parlon addressed the Impact AGM and told them that their jobs were moving, 'decentralisation' was not being scaled back and anyone with technical skills who didn't move would 'have difficulties'.

There's a vote tomorrow.

pete

NewDubliner wrote:

There's a vote tomorrow.

On what?

edit: On industrial action "if their concerns aren't addressed."

pete

Link to the RTE report http://dynamic.rte.ie/av/2044074.smil

pete

NewDubliner wrote:

On the RTE TV news tonight, it's reported that Tom Parlon addressed the Impact AGM and told them that their jobs were moving, 'decentralisation' was not being scaled back and anyone with technical skills who didn't move would 'have difficulties'.

In fairness to the former leader of the paramilitary wing of the PD's it wasn't so much a threat as a statement of the bleedin obvious.

I think they all kinda knew that already, Tom.... now, how about some answers?

NewDubliner

pete wrote:

Link to the RTE report http://dynamic.rte.ie/av/2044074.smil

Just watched it again.

Interesting that the report describes him as "The Minister Responsible for Decentralisation". Sounds like FF is putting him out on a limb.

Also of interest was how his thinking that losing so many expensively trained & recruited experts was more a problem for the staff themselves than him......he seemed either ignorant or insouciant of the consequences & costs.

The game goes on.

pete

NewDubliner wrote:

Just watched it again.

Interesting that the report describes him as "The Minister Responsible for Decentralisation". Sounds like FF is putting him out on a limb.

Aye, if i were him i'd be pretty much insisting on the inclusion of the words "the implementation of McCreevy's" in the middle of that sentence.

Also of interest was how his thinking that losing so many expensively trained & recruited experts was more a problem for the staff themselves than him......he seemed either ignorant or insouciant of the consequences & costs.

Sure it's only taxpayers money - easy come, easy go after all. And if the taxpayers themselves don't seem to give a monkey's, then why should we?

ishmael whale

I would have said Bruton’s statement that half those applying are already located outside the capital is simply a fact, and not merely a suggestion. Half the time the decentralisation programme amounts to moving people from Ballina to Claremorris. And we all know how vital that is.

http://www.examiner.ie/pport/web/Full_Story/did-sgA0FNLYFtc1Esg7OWirIStPSk.asp

12/05/05
Decentralisation plan fiasco: only 620 make move
By Juno McEnroe, Neans McSweeney, and Harry McGee
ONLY 620 of the 10,300 civil servants due to be decentralised have been assigned to locations outside Dublin, 18 months after the scheme was announced, it emerged yesterday. While some 9,000 civil servants have applied to be relocated, the fact that only 620, or 6%, have been assigned to their locations was pounced on by the opposition, which claimed the entire programme was heading for failure.

The disclosure was contained in figures obtained by the Oireachtas Committee on Finance & Public Services from the Decentralisation Implementation Group (DIG). Fine Gael deputy leader Richard Bruton yesterday lambasted Finance Minister Brian Cowen for what he said was the painfully slow progress of the scheme.

He said at the halfway stage of the programme the figures presented damning evidence of how ill-thought out the pet project of former Finance Minister Charlie McCreevy had been.

Mr Bruton also pointed to findings which showed that in 21 of the 47 locations, not a single person has been assigned.

He also suggested that half of those applying for new posts were already working in decentralised locations outside the capital.

But Finance last night strongly countered, saying that the 620 figure referred only to “early mover” locations - those identified by the DIG last November as the first locations to be decentralised.

A department spokesman said the figure was not indicative of the overall applications, which stood at over 9,000 people. He said 20 locations from a total of 53 were identified last November as early movers. The 620 staff who have been assigned are already undergoing training for relocation.

“It was never going to be a big bang. It is a rolling process and is proceeding according to plan,” he said.

The latest figures came as OPW Minister Tom Parlon addressed delegates from IMPACT, Ireland’s largest public sector union, and moved to assuage their concerns, at a Kilkenny conference last night.

IMPACT is one of several unions which have threatened possible industrial action over the decentralisation programme.

Mr Parlon insisted the programme is on schedule.

eigrod

NewDubliner wrote:

......he seemed either ignorant or insouciant of the consequences & costs.

the former methinks

pete

Cha-Ching! From today's Irish Times:

Teagasc employees whose head office was relocated from Dublin to Carlow last year are to receive payments of up to €15,000 each for commuting.

The Agriculture and Food Development Authority workers have been awarded a one-off sum based on €142 per mile by the Labour Court.

The award is the highest on record for workers for relocation of work premises and will set a precedent for other workers, despite the fact the decision to decentralise Teagasc was taken prior to the McCreevy decision to decentralise Government departments.

The payment will be made to the workers over three years and has been sanctioned by the Departments of Agriculture and Food and Finance.

Teagasc put a rationalisation programme into force to cope with rising losses in 2002, a year before the McCreevy announcement on decentralisation in December 2003.

The 100 Teagasc staff at the organisation's Sandymount Avenue premises in Dublin were told they would have to move to Oak Park in Carlow where the new headquarters is now located.

Maybe if 10,500 civil servants had approached decentralisation like it was some kind of gravy train the meeja would have had something to say about it? I guess we'll never know...

Dinarius

Surely The Idiot Parlon wants out and is banking on industrial action by Impact to allow him to do just that?

If the government walks away, they will be fried in the imminent general election.

On the other hand, if Parlon can say that the unions wouldn't cooperate, so the deal is off, the many disappointed towns might take a more generous view of the resulting mess.

The real crime, in my view, is the selling off of so many state buildings in Dublin. Never again to be in our hands. Very sad.

D.

NewDubliner

Specialists in Civil Service jobs angry over plan - Irish Times

....."Do you get a painter to put in your windows? Do you get a plumber to do your carpentry work? This is what it's going to amount to - we'll be general jobbers......

http://www.uncivilservant.com/article.php?id=536

ishmael whale

This is the bit that got me, a concrete example of how we’re spending money to provide a worse service.

….http://www.uncivilservant.com/article.php?id=536
… Delegates also passed a motion requesting the Government to rethink the proposed relocation of the Probation and Welfare Service to Navan, Co Meath, given that the service is "already decentralised".

Oliver Fallon of the probation and welfare officers branch told the conference that the service had 12 offices countrywide and eight district offices in Dublin. The Government was proposing to move 100 Dublin-based welfare officers to Navan. Probation and welfare officers, he said, worked effectively in tackling the causes of offending behaviour.

"To move us to Navan means we are moved away from the clients that we serve, the people that we are working with." Much of their work, he said, was carried out among deprived and marginalised communities in Dublin.
"I am sure that we'll make a lot of money in travelling expenses going back and forth between Dublin and Navan, but it is not going to make us work more effectively."

"Unfortunately, because a Minister has decided we are to be decentralised, everybody we are working with is going to suffer."

Mr Fallon said it had been very difficult to get eight district offices established in Dublin in the first place. The whole process had taken "time, effort and money" because of the costs involved and the need to consult with local communities and explain what the service was about. As a consequence of the decentralisation programme, the Government had "suddenly decided" that these local offices were to be closed…….

The_Conductor

Colleagues,
The Union's web page on Decentralisation <http://www.pseu.ie/html/Decent.html&gt; now contains a link to the Union
Circular to Branches Dated 20 May 2005 <http://www.pseu.ie/docs/Decent31.doc&gt;
Regards
Billy
Billy Hannigan
Assistant General Secretary
Public Service Executive Union
30 Merrion Square
Dublin 2
01 6767271

NewDubliner

Indo reproduces Government statement without question:

Cavan site chosen to house civil servants

THE Office of Public Works has secured a 10-acre site in Cavan to be used for the decentralisation of the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources.

The procurement of the site was welcomed by Junior Agriculture Minister Brendan Smith, who said 400 civil servants would be relocated to the region. He expects the project to be completed within three years.

"Many civil servants want out of Dublin and I believe the uptake will increase when this project really gets underway," he said.

"Over 200 staff from the Department of Agriculture relocated to Cavan in recent years to a new branch of the department there."

Patrick Tierney

ishmael whale

Quick, get a story out there that looks like decentralisation doesn’t cost a bomb. Get a site off the IDA, compare the cost of it to what some local gombeen was looking for and no-one will notice that building the office on it will cost €80 million.

http://www.unison.ie/irish_independent/stories.php3?ca=9&si=1401633&issue_id=12515

“THE OPW is to buy a site from the IDA for the new Department of Agriculture building at less than a quarter of the cost of a commercial site.
The deal will see the IDA sell a nine-acre site in Portlaoise, Co Laois, to the OPW for €2.3m. A commercial site examined by officials was offered at €10m…..

Mr Parlon said yesterday he hoped once the paperwork is signed he could move ahead with the building, expected to cost around €80m, as soon as possible.”

Victor

It struck that decentralisation has implications for vehicle registrations with department / agency vehicles now being registered in the county where the department / agency headquarters are. I'm not sure if this has any real effect seeing as the money goes into the Local Government Fund anyway.

The Local Government Fund does appear to be a political slush fund though.

ishmael whale wrote:

Get a site off the IDA, compare the cost of it to what some local gombeen was looking for and no-one will notice that building the office on it will cost €80 million.

Hmm, robbing Peter to pay Paul ....

uncivilservant

More Decentralisation savings:

More than 90% of all development aid staff are likely to leave Development Co-operation Ireland (DCI) by 2007, because only 11 out of 123 existing staff have said they will relocate to Limerick.

None of the 10-strong senior management team, at Counsellor and principal officer level, have applied to go to Limerick.

75% of the civil servants who have said they want to join DCI in order to move to Limerick are from outside the Department of Foreign Affairs, and are unlikely to have any significant development experience.

The embargo on public service recruitment means DCI will not be allowed to recruit experienced staff.

IMPACT official Angela Kirk said it would not be possible to double Ireland's aid spending in a responsible and accountable way on this basis.

"IMPACT would welcome a firm Government timetable for meeting its international commitment to reach the 0.7% development aid target. But the taxpayer can legitimately ask how this can be done sensibly and safely if decentralisation goes ahead. No other public service or commercial organisation would attempt to double its output while casually stripping itself of virtually all its management and specialist expertise," she said.

http://www.impact.ie/media/may/2005/decentral240505.htm


From today's Irish Times:

Ms Kirk said this would mean a huge skills shortage "for years to come", predicting those who currently work in DCI and who do not want to move to Limerick would leave the Civil Service to work for NGOs or other bodies in the field.

It would take years to replace the skills, she said. A portion of the resources which should be going towards meeting the 0.7 per cent target would be used on retraining and recruitment, she said.

"Non-specialist civil servants will not be able to just slip into these roles. These are people who have trained at third level, have bachelor's degrees and master's in Development Aid and who have worked on the ground overseas."

ishmael whale

A fair trip around the topic, including a rare recognition of the extent to which the current approach to regional policy has gobbled up resources to no avail.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2095-1631748,00.html

Irish Outlook: Damien Kiberd: End capital punishment
……Tom Parlon, the minister in charge of the Office of Public Works, proposes to spend €900m of taxpayers’ cash on relocating 10,000 public servants to about 50 rural locations. This will have a derisory effect on each of the “chosen” target destinations. It is also likely, based on the initial response from unions, that many public servants will not want to travel long distances. They may be willing to go to Portlaoise, Athlone or Tullamore — but they don’t want to go to the western seaboard.

…... He may spend the cash relocating about 5,000 public servants in what are called dormer suburbs of greater Dublin. That would be a complete waste of time when the workforce of greater Dublin is growing by about 40,000 a year.

The sheer pointlessness of Parlon’s decentralisation programmes matches the ludicrous arguments built into the National Spatial Strategy. Political diktats meant that the strategy suggested a huge number of urban locations might be used as “growth hubs”.

These ideas may be futile but they are not new. Some years ago, the need to promote investment in the west of Ireland was so great that manufacturers got 100% capital allowances, 60% capital grants and a top-up special investment allowance of 20%. Effectively the cost of capital, not simply servicing it, was made negative by the state. Yet this did not turn Connemara into the Ruhr or Dingle into the Ile de France.

The policy did have some effects. Gross domestic product per capita in greater Dublin is about 1.5 times that of the country generally. In Germany, by contrast, the GDP per capita of Frankfurt exceeds that of Germany’s regions by a factor of 3.5. ...

Much of the myth-making about greater Dublin’s “excessive” development stems from the dominance of top public service posts by people from rural areas and also from a palpable sense the Dublin planners and politicians have not managed its growth in an efficient way. This leads to an assumption that the capital is “too big” already. On a global scale, Dublin is a relatively small city and should not overplay its hand as a destination for foreign direct investment. If Dublin were in China, it would not figure in the league table of top cities. ….We would be far better served if we coped with the fact that greater Dublin is going to grow at a continuing exponential pace in coming years.

……. Whatever the cause of the problems, would we not be better off spending Parlon’s €900m on putting Dublin in order, instead of frittering it away on a statistically irrelevant plan to decentralise?.……..

NewDubliner

This, from the PSEU's latest report from its meeting with the DIG:

http://www.pseu.ie/docs/Decent32.doc

........
Members had pointed out that there did not seem to be a facility to withdraw indications of interest under the CAF. This was particularly important as some staff now wished to withdraw applications and to indicate a wish to be accommodated in Dublin.

The Official Side Representatives expressed some surprise and agreed to look into the matter.

I'm not certain if the Official Side was surprised by the omission of a withdrawal facility in their system or by the possibility that staff might change their minds.

Dinarius

NewDubliner wrote:

This, from the PSEU's latest report from its meeting with the DIG:

http://www.pseu.ie/docs/Decent32.docI'm not certain if the Official Side was surprised by the omission of a withdrawal facility in their system or by the possibility that staff might change their minds.

My wife, a civil servant, spoke to HR about this problem (in a moment of weakness, we had decided that we wanted to move and she had put her name down).

Apparently, the way it works is this: when you receive your letter of offer of transfer, you then decline.

D.

NewDubliner

Dinarius wrote:

Apparently, the way it works is this: when you receive your letter of offer of transfer, you then decline.D.

That's understandable, but if it happens a lot it could skew Tom Parlon's projections somewhat.

I've also heard of computer people putting their names down, just so they could spend more time at their chosen vocation until the government starts its purge of the Dublin IT staff. However, if they wihdraw their applications too soon, they'll be forced to train in their replacements before being sent to a Dublin gulag.

pete

NewDubliner wrote:

That's understandable, but if it happens a lot it could skew Tom Parlon's projections somewhat.

I don't think "if it happens" comes into it at all. I personally know of many, many civil servants who have "expressed an interest" in locations they have no intention of going to (or know will never happen) just to be left alone in their current position.

I've also heard of computer people putting their names down, just so they could spend more time at their chosen vocation until the government starts its purge of the Dublin IT staff. However, if they wihdraw their applications too soon, they'll be forced to train in their replacements before being sent to a Dublin gulag.

To be honest I doubt if many will withdraw before the absolute last minute, which should be.... interesting.

removefiannafai

Guys,
please check out my site www.soldiersofdestiny.org for more info on decentralisation and a host of other related topics.
If you have any criticisms I am open to all voices...I hope you will find it worth visiting...

NewDubliner

This from the 'Examiner', note the hand-washing by Tom 'Build it and they will come' Parlon, 'The Minister for Decentralisation'.

Just 2% of Ordnance Survey staff ‘interested in Waterford move’
By Neans McSweeney
THE Government will never manage to encourage enough Ordinance Survey staff to make a proposed move to Dungarvan in Co Waterford viable, a union boss has warned.

According to IMPACT assistant general secretary Matt Staunton, only 2% of the 250 Ordnance Survey staff have shown an interest in the Waterford move and the transfer is just not viable, no matter what the Government intends, he said.

"It's a shameful waste and it's back to the drawing board for the Government as far as we are concerned," he said.

"We are looking for an independent review of the plan. It is unsustainable and not viable.

"We will never get 250 cartographers to move to Dungarvan.

"The Ordinance Survey service is already decentralised all over the country and to centralise it to somewhere that nobody wants to go will mean that the country and infrastructure will suffer. There just won't be any maps," he warned.

Just last week, OPW Minister Tom Parlon confirmed the Government has purchased the old Waterford Foods site in the town and the transfer of the mapping service is imminent.

"This is very good news for Dungarvan with the recent announcement of the closure of Waterford Crystal there. We have a site, Waterford is going to happen and Ordinance Survey will be there," he said.

Responding to queries about how they were going to get people to move, given the poor interest in the site, Mr Parlon said: "It is now an issue for the minister with responsibility for Ordinance Survey and for the chief executive of that area. Every minister and secretary general will be responsible in such instances," he said.

Fianna Fáil county councillor Kieran O'Ryan said the Government wants decentralisation to press ahead as quickly as possible for the region, as some respite for the 485 jobs which are to be lost at Waterford Crystal 390 of which are in Dungarvan.

"The Government wants decentralisation in Dungarvan as much as anyone else.

"But there are people who do not want it, just because they are anti-Fianna Fáil. They would nearly prefer the Government not to bring it and to fail.

"We should all be working in the interest of the people who have lost their jobs. Many of people had big mortgages.

eigrod

Joe Humphreys from today's Irish Times, sums it all up quite well I thought :

An Irishman's Diary


If only the bookies took wagers on political disasters. Why, you'd find me standing at the cashier's desk with my life's savings in one hand and a betting slip in the other with one word written upon it: Decentralisation. Joe Humphreys writes.

Now, it so happens that I'm married to one of the 10,500 Dublin-based civil servants who have been earmarked for relocation to country constituencies with a Fianna Fáil/PD presence. But that fact hasn't given me any insider information on why decentralisation is an expensive cock-up in the making.

Any observer can see the warning signs: a grand announcement at a time when the Exchequer was flush with money; a direct linking of the plan to electioneering by the coalition parties; and a gritty determination to plough ahead despite rapidly rising costs, a looming industrial relations crisis, and so on.

There are three very simple questions which the Government has yet to answer: (a) How much will decentralisation cost? (b) How will it be implemented without creating inefficiencies and undermining the work of relocating State agencies and departments? and (c) What will happen to employees who opt to stay in Dublin?

Tom Parlon, "the Minister of State with responsibility for decentralisation", is already buying up buildings, or, as he likes to call them, "property solutions", around the country - this despite the fact that the Government has no idea how many civil servants will agree to move.

The parallels with the electronic voting fiasco are uncanny - only instead of being left with dud technology, the taxpayer is likely to be left with a dodgy property portfolio, funded in part by the sell-off of some of our most prestigious State buildings.

In response to question (a), Parlon last October gave a figure of €815 million for the acquisition of offices alone. Two months later, however, the Office of Public Works said housing a mere 3,500 decentralised civil servants would cost €900 million over the next four years.

This figure, of course, excludes any redundancy payments or relocation money which civil servants will undoubtedly demand, not to mention the possible recruitment of thousands of additional State employees to fill vacant posts.

The Association of Chief Executives of State Agencies claims more than 2,000 public servants may have a case for constructive dismissal. If successful, the employees could cost the State €400 million.

Such estimates may be exaggerated. But what is clear is that the public service unions have the Government over a barrel, and they know it. How else can you explain the demand from members of the Association of Higher Civil and Public Servants for a voluntary severance package with "a minimum of 10 added years service" for civil servants remaining in Dublin after their jobs have moved elsewhere?

Re question (b), consider the record of politically inspired decentralisations. In October 1998 the then Fianna Fáil minister of state with responsibility for forestry, Hugh Byrne, announced that the Forest Service would move to his Wexford constituency. During the move the service lost 90 per cent of its staff, and new employees with "no experience or knowledge" of the sector moved in to manage day-to-day affairs, according to a Comptroller and Auditor General report.

The result? A multimillion euro computerised mapping project, on which the service had been working, rapidly fell into mismanagement. The eventual collapse of the project - which had cost €9.2 million by the end of 2002 - was a "direct or indirect" result of decentralisation, the report stated.

What safeguards are being put in place to avoid a similar waste of public funds in the relocation of no less than 19 State agencies and eight departments? Neither Parlon nor any Government Minister has provided an answer.

As for (c), the question perhaps of most concern to decentralising employees, the Minister of State has given a reply of sorts. It is a reply of the two-fingered variety.

While he claims decentralisation is "voluntary", Parlon recently slated civil servants who think "they are so special that they can't be moved, or they can't be somewhere else, in this day and age". In an interview with RTÉ he also accused the public service unions of failing to "engage" with the Department of Finance when those same unions have for months been seeking in vain to get details on what would happen to employees who opt to stay in Dublin.

Could Parlon himself explain what would happen to, say, ordnance survey mappers who chose not to move to Dungarvan? "That," he said, "is an issue for the Minster with responsibility for Ordnance Survey and for the chief executive of Ordnance Survey."

Take note of the reply because it will be used again if Parlon is asked to appear before the Dáil Committee on Public Accounts to be questioned on how the OPW spent tens of millions of euros on a vacant building in Co Waterford (as is quite likely) because Ordnance Survey staff decided to stay in Dublin.

In fact, Parlon's passing of the buck is the surest indicator that decentralisation will end in disaster. Despite his title, the Minister of State is not responsible for decentralisation. He is the junior Minister with responsibility for spending Exchequer funds on "property solutions" for an ill-defined plan that has no obvious benefit for the taxpayer.

Just who is responsible for the scheme is unclear. Parlon will be happy to reap any political reward for his work, particularly in his own constituency of Laois-Offaly (where, incidentally, Fás are moving into a building that has doubled in price since it was evaluated).

But when decentralisation unravels into one of the most costly political follies of modern times - as it is shaping up to do - Parlon will blame everyone but himself: Government Ministers, department secretary generals, State agency chief executives and, most of all, those oh-so-special public service employees.

You can bank on it.

ishmael whale

I agree - this is exactly where we're headed.

..Could Parlon himself explain what would happen to, say, ordnance survey mappers who chose not to move to Dungarvan? "That," he said, "is an issue for the Minster with responsibility for Ordnance Survey and for the chief executive of Ordnance Survey."

Take note of the reply because it will be used again if Parlon is asked to appear before the Dáil Committee on Public Accounts to be questioned on how the OPW spent tens of millions of euros on a vacant building in Co Waterford (as is quite likely) because Ordnance Survey staff decided to stay in Dublin....

Dinarius

The most cogent and articulate piece on decentralisation that I have read.

Don't ya just love it when someone calls the likes of Parlon strictly by his surname? No title whatsoever. The best means of showing contempt.

D.

Zaph0d

In response to question (a), Parlon last October gave a figure of €815 million for the acquisition of offices alone. Two months later, however, the Office of Public Works said housing a mere 3,500 decentralised civil servants would cost €900 million over the next four years.

250,000 euro per person.

Parlon delivers (your money into a hole in the bog)

eigrod

Zaph0d wrote:

Parlon delivers (your money into a hole in the bog)

Unless of course you happen to be a building contractor or land owner in which case he truly delivers.

NewDubliner

This was published in the 'Irish Examiner' last week. It's highly speculative & no attempt is made to distinguish fact from spin. For example, 300 jobs have not been promised to Dungarvan. All that may happen is that 300 people might commute there and buy their 'Examiner' in the local shops at lunchtime.

The Examiner Fri, 27 May 2005
Decentralisation can work if done correctly
by Jim Power

IN the days following Charlie McCreevy's surprising Budget day announcement in December 2003 that, more than 10,300 public servants would be relocated out of Dublin, the towns not chosen to host the de-centralised workers were quite annoyed.
One of the more cynical economic commentators suggested back then that these towns should market themselves as `public servant free' locations.
Whatever the merits of such a marketing campaign, it is understandable that the host towns felt elated and those ignored, upset.
The arrival of 300 or 400 secure, pensionable, and relatively well-paid jobs would represent positive news at any time, but particularly when other jobs are being steadily lost.
For example, given the bad news on the jobs front that Co Waterford has received in recent weeks, the creation of 300 public service jobs in Dungarvan and 200 in Waterford City would be very welcome.
The plan to decentralise public servants has met with opposition, and whether this is just a public sector union ploy to extract generous relocation expenses from government or a real concern, is a moot point.
For many public sector workers, leaving the crime, commute times, house prices, cost of living and poor quality of life behind should prove attractive.
But for families with children in school, relocation might not be enticing, but then again that is a real- ity many workers, such as gardai and bank officials, have had to live with for many years, and they have coped quite well.
On a balance sheet basis, it seems strange the debits would exceed the credits.
Presumably, those for whom that is the case would have opportunities to find other roles in Dublin based public sector areas.
For the overall economy, and particularly the achievement of more balanced regional economic development, central to the National Spatial Strategy, decentralisation would be a step in the right direction, notwithstanding some of the inconsistencies inherent in the two processes.
Many communities in Ireland are losing economic activity and young people due to the displacement of workers from manufacturing and agriculture.
For such local economies, the possibility of receiving hundreds of public sector workers would be manna from heaven. It is time policy-making became a little less 'Dublin-centric', and the, decentralisation of deparments and public sector bodies might just further this objective.
One of the valid concerns all taxpayers should have is that the delivery of public services would suffer and become less efficient due to decentralisation.
However, such an outcome is not necessarily inevitable.
Provided the right conditions are put in place, the process could work effectively.
For example, nobody could possibly argue the Revenue Commissioners have become less efficient as a result of the move to Limerick and Nenagh.
The service provided by the Central Statistics Office is superb and seamless, regardless of whether one is dealing with its operations in Cork or Dublin.
To ensure the quality of public services is not dam- aged, it is also necessary to ensure mobility and promotional opportunities for civil servants.
Any workforce must be motivated to deliver a first- class service, and there is no reason why decentral- isation, if properly constructed, should undermine this.
Decentralisation should be given every chance. Ireland is not a big country and, provided the proper IT infrastructure is in place, the customer should not notice the difference between a service delivered from Dungarvan or Dublin.
However, one wonders if the full plan will ever be implemented and the people of Dungarvan should be putting pressure on politicians, particularly local TDs, to determine the status of the 300 jobs promised for the town.

bonkey

NewDubliner wrote:

For example, 300 jobs have not been promised to Dungarvan.

A quick google on the words "dungarvan decentralisation" would seem to suggest somewhat otherwise.

McCreevy said it in his budget speech, to begin with.

However, he later clarified (in the Dail question-time amongst other places) that the figure of 300 was incorrect, as it didn't exclude 95 staff already in regional offices which he had also stated would not be effected, leaving the number at 210.

NewDubliner

bonkey wrote:

A quick google on the words "dungarvan decentralisation" would seem to suggest somewhat otherwise.
McCreevy said it in his budget speech, to begin with.

So they've promised jobs to people in Dungarvan which are already being done by other people? At best, if they find volunteers, they'll be people who already have jobs elsewhere in the civil service. They probably live in Waterford already.

This sounds like a three card trick being played on the voters in Dungarvan.