Decentralisation

pete

NewDubliner wrote:

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

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.

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.

Looks like nobody told bertie... or else he deliberately misled the Dáil today:

bertie wrote:

In terms of final numbers, the central applications facility list is still open and people in various Departments are moving on and off that list all the time. It would not remain the same. People change their minds.

NewDubliner

pete wrote:

Looks like nobody told bertie... or else he deliberately misled the Dáil today:

The mix is composed of six assistant principal officers, nine administrative officers, four higher executive officers, 11 executive officers, three staff officers and nine clerical officers

There must be a serious morale problem there, the number is way above average, not just in proportion to the size of the department but also the number of APs & HEOS who've generally been the least likely to want to move.

They're be plenty of map-makers and IT specialists to move in there.

Dinarius

My wife received her letter of offer yesterday.

She's in DCMNR. We had considered moving to Clonakilty.

She returned a pfo.

Needless to say, no indication was given in the letter as to when she might acutally be able to move.

D.

NewDubliner

This link may be be helpful to those who cannot wait to refuse their offers: http://www.publicjobs.ie/en/caf/how_to_withdraw_app.htm

NewDubliner

This, from Tom Parlon, published in the Irish Times in response to Joe Humphries. He's a bit short on facts and avoids committing himself to say how much the whole scheme will cost, how the benefits will be measured and if they'll be worth the cost. He dodges saying what kind of jobs will be offered to IT specialists who've committed years to their vocation only to see a future where all IT positions will be purged from the Dublin area.

Note, too, the fantastic statements claiming beneficial effects on traffic and housing in Dublin:

Come the next election, he'll have all the credit for putting up buildings in sensitive constituencies, while his Fianna Fail partners will have all the grief of trying to find qualified people to work in them.

Decentralisation will benefit public servants - and none of them will have a case for constructive dismissal, writes Tom Parlon

In a recent Irishman's Diary, Joe Humphreys strongly attacked the Government's policy of decentralisation and asked a number of questions regarding its implementation.

I would like to answer the questions he raised and also to point out some of the many positive aspects of decentralisation.

Mr Humphreys, like many of his fellow commentators in the media, continues to cite negatives while completely ignoring the positive aspects of decentralisation.

This current programme was first mooted as far back as 1999 and has its origins in the very positive experience that Government, staff and customers of the public service had of previous decentralisations. Had Mr Humphreys carried out a little research he may well have been able to answer the questions that he himself has raised.

I will endeavour, yet again, to answer those questions and perhaps put paid to those doubting that this Government decision will be implemented.

(a) How much will decentralisation cost? The Decentralisation Implementation Group's second report in November 2004 outlined the costs associated with the programme. The main costs will arise in the area of providing suitable "property solutions".

A capital envelope of Eur900 million has been provided for the Office of Public Works, over the next number of years, as the gross cost of relocating all of the 10,300 staff. This figure does not take into account the sums that will accrue from the sale of buildings in Dublin or savings on rent currently being paid on other leased buildings; for example, Eur100 million was realised last year with a similar amount expected this year.

In addition, at the end of the process the State will own the buildings at the provincial locations. The true net cost will only emerge over a period of time.

(b) How will it be implemented without creating inefficiencies and undermining the work of relocating State agencies and departments?

We already know that decentralisation has worked very successfully in the past. Both the Department of Social and Family Affairs and the Revenue Commissioners have made it clear that they suffered no loss of efficiency in their service to their customers as a result of previous decentralisations. Indeed, in Revenue's case, it claims that the very fact that the organisation had embarked on a relocation programme provided an opportunity for re-engineering their operations, leading to a value-added outcome.

While the current programme is on a bigger scale, decentralisation undoubtedly provides an opportunity to take another look at how things are done in the public service and to make changes, which both facilitate decentralisation and modernise the way services are provided to customers.

In addition the advent of broadband, the internet and e-mail, instant messaging and other advanced communication technologies now means that for many business functions location is irrelevant.

I firmly believe that decentralisation will be a catalyst for positive change and enhanced performance within the service.

(c) What will happen to employees who opt to stay in Dublin?

This is a voluntary programme. It is also recognised that some staff, for personal reasons, will opt to remain in Dublin. It has been explained that in such cases staff will be offered an alternative public service post in Dublin.

Sensationalist comments such "voluntary severance package" and "public servants may have a case for constructive dismissal" serves only to create uncertainty and hinders the ongoing negotiations between the Department of Finance and the various representative bodies.

Everybody knows that in the discussions with unions and in a number of public statements, it has been made clear that a voluntary severance package does not form part of the Government's implementation strategy. Similarly, the Government is satisfied that in the context of a voluntary relocation programme the issue of constructive dismissal does not arise.

No one argues with the fact that this ambitious decentralisation programme is by far the largest and most wide-ranging in the history of the State. It involves the relocation of more than 10,000 civil and public service jobs to some 53 locations in 25 counties. Rather than highlight the negatives and challenges ahead, perhaps Mr Humphreys could have stated some of the potential benefits of decentralisation, which are immense.

Civil servants seeking to leave Dublin - for example, to return to family and friends back home or to acquire an affordable and comfortable family home within easy reach of their workplace - will have a broad range of options. There will also be a wider range of work and career opportunities for civil servants already working outside Dublin.

Present and future civil servants who aspire to senior management positions will no longer have necessarily to migrate to the capital, although many will continue to do so. The programme will help to ease traffic congestion and housing inflation in Dublin will be lessened.

In addition, the economic impact of in excess of 10,000 well-paid jobs will be significant and positive for many communities throughout the country.

Mary Harney as minister of enterprise, trade and employment directed the IDA to urge multinationals to increase foreign direct investment in the regions, and I am glad to say that in 2004 half of all foreign direct investment in the State went outside Dublin. Now the Government is doing more than urging the private sector to invest in the regions, we are leading by example and locating many of our departments and agencies in the regions.

It is well recognised that the concentration of economic activity in a major city is often key to promoting economic growth. However, at a certain stage the negative impact of economic concentration begins to outweigh the positives, as commuting, congestion and living costs escalate, raising production costs, destroying competitiveness and lowering people's quality of life.

One does not have to be an economist to see that is precisely what is happening to our capital city. Decentralisation is not just a positive for the regions, it is a positive response to the challenges facing the city of Dublin.

There is life outside the Pale and governing this country does not have to be carried out from the Dublin 2 area. I look forward to seeing this programme completed and would ask Joe Humphreys (who said he wished bookmakers took bets on political disasters) to find other safe bets for when he visits his local bookmaker.

Tom Parlon is Minister of State for Finance with special responsibility for the Office of Public Works

CaptainPeacock

Has it dawned on anyone that while the present government is trying to divert people's attention with a dummy 'Decentralisation' scheme, they are engaged in massive motorway building towards Dublin, which is Centralisation the likes of which we've never had before?

So you have unfortunate people from Meath, Kildare etc. having to travel to Dublin and back again to work, and have no loyalty or love for Dublin, must carry on, and the civil servants that actually call Dublin their home are being forced to move out? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

ishmael whale

Parlon's article is a crock. Despite promising to answer all our questions, he just repeats the usual evasions.

(a) How much will decentralisation cost? Parlon simply repeats the estimated cost of providing new accommodation, with the qualification that “The true net cost will only emerge over a period of time.” He specifically does not put forward any estimate for the cost of retraining, IT, additional transport costs, etc etc. There seems to be no estimate available of these costs, and despite the bluster, Parlon is not providing one now.

(b) How will it be implemented without creating inefficiencies and undermining the work of relocating State agencies and departments? Parlon asserts that the Department of Social and Family Affairs and the Revenue Commissioners state they suffered no loss of efficiency as a result of previous decentralisations. However, he does not deal with the know questions such as the additional ongoing costs involved in the Legal Aid Board decentralisation, the staff left idle in Ballina when housing grants were abolished as it was difficult to reallocate them into other work areas, the problems in finding work from the staff released by the simplified agriculture payments system.

He does not answer the illustrative cases that have been raised in relation to the probation and welfare service needing to close its local centres so that they can all be moved to Navan and the loss of cartographer expertise in the Ordanance survey.

(c) What will happen to employees who opt to stay in Dublin? Rather comically, Parlon says “It is also recognised that some staff, for personal reasons, will opt to remain in Dublin.” I think what they have found is that most staff, rather than ‘some staff’, want to remain in Dublin, a reality so uncomfortable he has to pretend it doesn’t exist.

He repeats that it is a voluntary programme and says people opting to stay in Dublin will be offered an alternative public service post in Dublin. But he does not address the key issue. What alternative job will be on offer for, say, Ordnance Survey cartographers? Is the plan to retrain them as, say, probation officers if they decide to go to Navan? Is that realistic? What will the retraining cost? The questions don’t stop there, but the answers haven’t even started to appear.

Parlon asserts the potential benefits of decentralisation to be “immense.” They seem to be: 1. Better career options for people wanting to pursue a civil service career outside Dublin. I’m sorry, but I really don’t see why this is such a pressing issue compared to, say, promoting an effective health service.

2. The programme will help to ease traffic congestion and housing inflation in Dublin. As we know, the scattergram approach will do nothing to create scale in a regional centre that might divert development from Dublin, so this benefit does not exist.

3. The economic impact of in excess of 10,000 well-paid jobs would be significant in local areas. It simply doesn’t work like that. We tend to consume imports and produce for export, so the consumer expenditure of staff in a regional location actually does very little to boost the Irish economy. Where do you buy your imported car? Which branch of Aldi do you shop in?

No apparent benefits, undisclosed (and possibly unknown) costs. Why is this programme not dead?

sceptre

ishmael whale wrote:

Parlon's article...

Not half tempted to send in something like your above post to the Times as a letter? At least the first half?

NewDubliner

ishmael whale wrote:

Parlon asserts that the Department of Social and Family Affairs and the Revenue Commissioners state they suffered no loss of efficiency as a result of previous decentralisations.

That's typical Parlon, he doesn't give the whole story. Revenue said that it cost them a lot of money, they lost expertese and they had to hire extra people for many years. Nobody knows exactly how much it cost or if the reorganisation could have been done more cheaply in Dublin. There's now a crisis in their Limerick office as so many staff there, unhappy with working in Limerick, have volunteered to decentralise again. Having already done its bit for the country, Revenue is now being forced to replace most of its IT staff so that jobs can be moved to Kildare town.

sceptre wrote:

Not half tempted to send in something like your above post to the Times as a letter? At least the first half?

Civil Servants are generally gagged from making public statements on matters of public controversy. Since the decentralisation scheme was announced everyone has been forced to sign statements that they've read the rules. So unless your'e married to a journalist (like Joe Humphreys' wife), you cannot publicly criticise or ask awkward questions about government policy.

ishmael whale

sceptre wrote:

Not half tempted to send in something like your above post to the Times as a letter? At least the first half?

But then I'd have to give up my quasi-Batman like anonymity (God, this rubber mask and cape sure makes you sweat.) But I might go straight to the horses mouth and send these comments to Parlon's office, and see if anything drops out.

cyclopath2001

CaptainPeacock wrote:

Has it dawned on anyone that while the present government is trying to divert people's attention with a dummy 'Decentralisation' scheme...

You mean like Dublin's 'Strategic Cycle Network' consisting of 300km of mostly invisible cycle tracks? Naw, they wouldn't do that.

CaptainPeacock

sceptre wrote:

Not half tempted to send in something like your above post to the Times as a letter? At least the first half?

Advice: If you decide to send that letter, pretend that it comes from Dalkey or Dublin X, where X(mod 2) = 0. That way it stands a much better chance of getting printed.

Dinarius

CaptainPeacock wrote:

Advice: If you decide to send that letter, pretend that it comes from Dalkey or Dublin X, where X(mod 2) = 0. That way it stands a much better chance of getting printed.

If they're going to publish it,they will ring you before hand to confirm your details. That's happened to me in the past.

D.

The_Conductor

Dinarius wrote:

If they're going to publish it,they will ring you before hand to confirm your details. That's happened to me in the past.

D.

Not necessarily- I have had a number of letters published on a range of different topics (mostly in the Irish Times) and have never been called to confirm my details (which I had nonetheless supplied).

NewDubliner

smccarrick wrote:

Not necessarily- I have had a number of letters published on a range of different topics (mostly in the Irish Times) and have never been called to confirm my details (which I had nonetheless supplied).

Hmm, I wonder what the penalty would be for a breach of the code of conduct on public statements? Promotion blocked and transfered to a dead-end job?

ishmael whale

Different country, same story.

http://news.scotsman.com/opinion.cfm?id=652982005
The Executive must bring this policy to an immediate halt

IF there has been one policy being driven relentlessly forward by our new parliament that has proved more contentious than any other, it is surely the decentralisation of public sector jobs to far flung parts of the country. The idea of spreading the benefits of home rule might at first glance appear worthy and well-intentioned, but even a cursory analysis reveals it to be completely misguided and a total waste of taxpayers' money. ……

It is quite clear few wish to move. Only 40 out of 248 at Scottish National Heritage have opted to transfer to Inverness and unions estimate the cost of moving the quango will work out at almost £1million per job.

But despite political, staff and union opposition, the bandwagon rolls on regardless of the strife and unnecessary anguish this heartless policy is causing. To date, 32 bodies employing almost 4500 staff have been examined for possible relocation. In the last three years 1400 posts have been transferred out of the Capital. ….

It is easy to be parochial and say this is being done out of Edinburgh envy, but there is more than an element of that in this blinkered and misguided move. But for whatever reason this ill-conceived policy is being pursued, the Executive should bring it to an immediate halt. It is wasting vast amounts of money it has been given to make Scotland a better place on what is nothing but playing God with people's lives. There is no evidence whatsoever that blowing millions on these pointless exercises is proving to be of any benefit to the country whatsoever.

NewDubliner

Parlon strikes again: The site includes the Revenue Computer Centre. Parlon wants them to go to Kildare, there have been few volunteers.

Green light for 32-storey Dublin building

15 June 2005 19:57

An Board Pleanála has given permission for a development in Dublin that includes plans for the country's tallest building.

The 32-storey building is part of an eight-acre development planned by the office of public works near Heuston Station near Kilmainham.

Full report & video (not including the modern IT centre that will have to be demolished): http://www.rte.ie/news/2005/0615/kilmainham.html

CaptainPeacock

Sand wrote:

Its a either or equation that the government cant do much about really, beyond Khmer Rouge style intervention regardless of whose in power.

How do you know? Fianna Fáil haven't been out for long enough to even allow us to tell how the opposition might do.

I still like to believe that there is such a thing as government with backbone. It doesn't take the Khmer Rouge to re-open a rail line.

SkepticOne

cal29 wrote:

why not move the jobs out to where people are living than have the uneconomical option of having thousands of people forcing there way into Dublin

But there's over a million people already in Dublin. If a company wants a good supply of skilled people, it makes sense for them to locate where a lot of people are living. I believe the IDA tried to bribe Google to locate in Athlone which is a comparitively large inland town. If they can't get companies to locate there, what chance do they have with some God-forsaken dormatory town?

Sand

including improving public transport
facilitating industries to set up or move out side of dublin
freeing up developement land around Dublin

Improving public transport is fairly vague, but again, its not something that theres huge division between the parties over. Rainbow got thrown out because they didnt have great ideas back then, and as I recall a fair few motorways were built in that time.

Either way its not a 5 year plan to improve public transport, youre talking 20-30 years of committed consistent development. The scale of the task is such that the Dublin Bus carries only 80,000 people to and from work each day. I think something like 500,000 journey in and out by car. Dublin Bus simply cant handle that sort of demand, and thats not going to change because the Rainbow are in power. And the basic blocks on reform such as the CIE unions arent going to change either.

why should it be a 4 or 5 hour drive and not a 45 / 60 minute train journey for example

No reason why not if you are prepared to move close to a train station and your job is within reach of the station youre getting off at. The basic requirement doesnt change whether its Rainbow in power or not.

why not move the jobs out to where people are living than have the uneconomical option of having thousands of people forcing there way into Dublin

Because its far, far, far more uneconomical to move employers out to where they can easily and quickly satisfy skill requirments from a pool of labour like they can in Dublin, and employees like living in or around Dublin.

And why are we building commuter homes 100 miles from the city when there is vast tracts of suitable land much closer to the city

A)Because the people holding the land dont want to sell it.
B)Because its not a bad idea to keep some greenfield areas in and around the city.
C)Because building more houses in those areas will simply lead to more traffic

How do you know? Fianna Fáil haven't been out for long enough to even allow us to tell how the opposition might do.

The Rainbow havent been out long enough for the rose tinted glasses to have much effect on me yet. I remember them, they were just another useless bunch of gimps. And theyre so inept they can score significant damage on this government despite all the free shots theyre been given.

Im hardly encouraged.

ishmael whale

This is another of those little cases to bear in mind when the assertion is made that decentralisations to date are ‘successful’. The location and number of staff becomes a matter of politics, rather than simply a matter of operational efficiency.

There’s a certain irony in the Mayo Deputy’s comment that

It seems clear to me that this arrangement is to suit the purposes of certain Cabinet Ministers and Junior Ministers rather than suit the cost-efficient operation of the Department,” concluded Deputy Ring.

as it could just as equally apply to the decision to locate a portion of the Department in Castlebar and, indeed, the decision to keep up the appearance that they’re still actually gainfully employed by chucking them some Garda data entry work.

It might also be fruitful to reflect how the deficiencies of the Garda computer system will presumably now need to be preserved as the foundation on which the continued existence of the Castlebar office will be based.

http://www.westernpeople.ie/news/story.asp?j=25717

Wednesday, June 08, 2005

Shift work dilemma for Castlebar staff
by Marian Harrison

A lack of wisdom surrounds the closure of the Agricultural offices in Castlebar, according to Deputy Michael Ring. Transferring the Department of Agriculture from Castlebar to Portlaoise doesn’t make sense, argues the Westport deputy.

“It will cost almost €80m to provide the necessary accommodation in Portlaoise. There was ample space in Castlebar to continue the work, which was being efficiently dealt with,” said Deputy Ring. The present proposals to close the Agricultural offices in Castlebar will see all agriculture work transferred to Portlaoise with the exception of the District Veterinary Office (DVO) and the Agriculture Environment Structures section.

Staff in Castlebar, who do not wish to transfer to Portlaoise will have the option of working on the Garda Pulse Project but Deputy Ring is adamant that many don’t favour this type of shift work.

“Not all of the staff in Castlebar are interested in transferring to shift work on Pulse. It does not make sense to spend so much from the state coffers on new accommodation when sufficient accommodation is available in Castlebar. ….

cal29

SkepticOne wrote:

But there's over a million people already in Dublin. If a company wants a good supply of skilled people, it makes sense for them to locate where a lot of people are living. I believe the IDA tried to bribe Google to locate in Athlone which is a comparitively large inland town. If they can't get companies to locate there, what chance do they have with some God-forsaken dormatory town?

well thats why the Government should be implementing the spatial strategy instead of going of on a tangent with decentralisation

to follow the logic eventually everyone will live in dublin

if Google wouldn't locate in Athlone did the Government try Drogheda or Navan or somewhere else that thousands of people travel from on a daily basis into Dublin

cal29

Sand wrote:

Improving public transport is fairly vague, but again, its not something that theres huge division between the parties over. Rainbow got thrown out because they didnt have great ideas back then, and as I recall a fair few motorways were built in that time. .

well what more do you want me to post a detailed map of where the trian tracks should be laid

if you want some examples

upgrade of the Dublin Belfast line so it is not sharing with the Dart

direct train lines from Navan etc

Sand wrote:

Either way its not a 5 year plan to improve public transport, youre talking 20-30 years of committed consistent development. The scale of the task is such that the Dublin Bus carries only 80,000 people to and from work each day. I think something like 500,000 journey in and out by car. Dublin Bus simply cant handle that sort of demand, and thats not going to change because the Rainbow are in power. And the basic blocks on reform such as the CIE unions arent going to change either..

No a proper committed government could do things much faster than that



no it is about 76,000 by bus 23,000 by train and 241,000 by car just to work

Dublin Bus could not handle that demand at the moment but thats why they need investment


the block on improving Dublin Bus services is from the government side not the unions

Sand wrote:

No reason why not if you are prepared to move close to a train station and your job is within reach of the station youre getting off at. The basic requirement doesnt change whether its Rainbow in power or not..

your misssing the point we already have thousands of houses we need to supply them with a viable public transport
by building new stations and new railway lines

Sand wrote:

Because its far, far, far more uneconomical to move employers out to where they can easily and quickly satisfy skill requirments from a pool of labour like they can in Dublin, and employees like living in or around Dublin. .

yes some employees do like living in dublin but we have thousands of people who dont live in dublin but have to commute for hours to dublin to work

it makes far more economic sense to move the work closer to were a skilled labour pool is

Sand wrote:

A)Because the people holding the land dont want to sell it.
B)Because its not a bad idea to keep some greenfield areas in and around the city.
C)Because building more houses in those areas will simply lead to more traffic
.

then they should be forced to sell it for the benefit of the country the same way the NRA can compulsary purchase land needed for road projects
land needed for housing should be taken from them

we are not taking about green spaces but land that has already been designated suitable for house building

and it wont worsen the traffic situation if it is planned properly and public transport is provided

CaptainPeacock

SkepticOne wrote:

But there's over a million people already in Dublin. If a company wants a good supply of skilled people, it makes sense for them to locate where a lot of people are living.

I agree; places like Galway, Cork, Limerick, Waterford, Kilkenny...

There are tens of thousands of people living in Dublin who would jump at the chance to move to one of those places, where homes are more affordable, transport is not murder and the air is breathable.

But instead we've got tens of thousands of people from all over the country going to Dublin to live temporary lives on someone else's property, where they pay scandalous rents and scandalous prices for junk clothes and junk food.

murphaph

I'm totally sick of government dithering on just about every major issue. I'm sick of all the pandering to the unions, the backbenchers, the vested interests.

Would it be better under the rainbow? Probably not.

Oh how depressing.

NewDubliner

This statement by O'Cuiv didn't get the publicity it deserved last month, but lucky for him , the 'Public Sector Times' admires his views. This copy, I found on the web. I suspect it's slightly different from that in the PST, as I recall that one had some crudely veiled threats about what would happen if the staff don't bow to the will of the government. Naturally, he exaggerates the advantages of non-Dublin locations and the disadvantages of Dublin. Naturally too, the bothersome question of cost & value for money is not addressed.

Enjoy.

OPENING ADDRESS BY ÉAMON Ó CUÍV, T.D.
PAI CONFERENCE
“DECENTRALISATION – CHALLENGES, ISSUES AND POTENTIAL”

Good morning everyone. I am delighted to have been asked by Public Affairs Ireland to open this conference on the challenges, issues and potential of decentralisation.

The first thing I would like to say here this morning is that I recognise that all change, particularly such a major change as this, is difficult no matter how desirable or necessary the long-term result will be. I would therefore like to make it absolutely clear this morning that whereas I am a huge proponent of decentralisation and I feel that it will have tremendous long-term beneficial effects, I am not blind to the difficulties, personal and organisational, that this will pose.


Decentralisation has happened before
· Decentralisation is not a new concept in the Civil Service - several decentralisation programmes have been implemented successfully over the past 20 years. Sligo, Letterkenny, Cavan, Ennis, Kilkenny, Longford, Limerick and Cork are just a few of the towns and cities that have welcomed Government offices and their staff and the moves have, in all cases, proved to be of major benefit to the regions and to the staff concerned. The latest initiative however is more radical and ambitious than any undertaken heretofore. In this programme, for the first time, entire Departments, including Ministers, Secretaries General and senior management, will relocate.

· A number of commentators have tried to indicate that decentralisation will impose impossible communication difficulties making it impossible to service the Oireachtas and will cause organisational chaos. In both of the Departments in which I have worked, i.e. the Department of Agriculture & Food and the Department of Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht & the Islands, now the Department of Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs, the Department had significant decentralised offices. In fact in the Department of Agriculture I was responsible for areas of activity that were located in Cavan, Castlebar, Portlaoise, Wexford and Dublin. Whereas I would not necessarily be a proponent of that type of scattergun approach to decentralisation, it has been my experience that decentralisation does not pose any insurmountable logistical problems.


Regional balance
· I am confident that decentralisation will prove beneficial to the Departments concerned, to the staff transferring and particularly to the regions to which they relocate. In these times of rapid economic expansion it is important that growth should be regionally balanced. In recent years, both employment and population have increased disproportionately in the greater Dublin area. While the rise in prosperity is welcome, it has resulted in problems of congestion, heavy traffic, scarcity of housing and a general diminution in the quality of life for those living in the area. On the other hand, other areas have not benefited from the economic upturn and there is considerable spare capacity in many of the regions. Relocation of public service jobs to towns in all areas of the country indicates the importance the Government places in fostering and developing regional balance.

Choice of Towns
· I have seen much public comment regarding the choice of towns. It would appear that some commentators expected the Government to pick “gateways” and “hubs” exclusively for decentralisation. They have accused us of having a scattergun approach to it, I would like to clarify this issue this morning. It was absolutely vital to ensure the widest choice possible for public servants that decentralisation would be spread over a wide geographic area
If decentralisation was to be concentrated in “gateway” and “hub” towns, it would exacerbate problems some of these towns and cities are facing due to very rapid expansion which is happening faster than the provision of infrastructure both social and economic. Most gateway cities and towns are growing rapidly, to accelerate this growth unnecessarily and to leave other areas languish in the wilderness of stagnation would be a foolish policy. The purpose of the spatial strategy is to build up critical mass for foreign direct investment, not to suck out development from rural areas. In fact the whole purpose of it is to spread development as evenly as possible throughout the country not to suck it in towards the centre, be they the national centre in Dublin or regional centres.

Advantages to regions
· Decentralisation will bring advantages to rural communities both financially and socially. It will result in an influx of high quality jobs to those regions receiving relocated offices. It is well recorded that a large percentage of jobs created in a modern economy such as Ireland are in services rather than manufacturing. Relocating public offices creates demand for local services, which in turn attract people into jobs and businesses to supply those services. This, in effect, is a virtuous circle where the original impetus from decentralisation leads on to long-term benefits in local employment and job creation.

Advantages to staff
A large number of public service jobs will no longer be located in Dublin and those wishing to work in the public sector will be able to work in or near their own areas. This will allow them to enjoy the support of family and friends and will, in turn, enable them to contribute to their communities. Because entire Departments are being relocated, staff can aspire to promotion through the grades in a way that has not heretofore been a feature of decentralised locations. Up to now people have come to Dublin from all over the country to pursue a career in the Civil Service. Even if they started out elsewhere in the country, they would end up having to come to Dublin for promotion. In many cases, in my experience, people passed up opportunities of promotion rather than transfer to Dublin thus creating a log jam in prospects in decentralised offices.

All this will change when the current programme is complete. Using my own Department as an example, if someone from Mayo joins at Clerical Officer level they will have 1,000 Civil Service colleagues of all grades in the same county - in Ballina, Castlebar, Claremorris and Knock Airport - ranging from the most junior levels right up to Secretary General. And there are other towns in nearby counties with permanent civil and public service positions. This means that staff will have opportunities for promotion to the highest level without having to leave their own region.

They can also look forward to considerably reduced commuting times on roads that are not choked with traffic. And the lower property prices available outside the Dublin area will bring house ownership within the reach of many people who are excluded at the moment.

Encouraging investment in regions
· In deciding to relocate a large portion of the public service outside Dublin, the Government is stating its confidence in the regions and a certainty that vital services can be delivered from the provinces. The imbalance in employment in the Dublin area exists just as much in the private as in the public sector. In setting an example to industry and private sector enterprises, the Government hopes that foreign companies seeking to invest in Ireland will follow their lead and become more open to locating in the regions. This will be a vital factor in reversing the present regional imbalance.

Meeting the challenges
· I recognise that decentralisation will present many challenges both at a human and organisational level. At a human level, there is a big uptake at the more junior grades, reflecting at least in part, a high number of people who are relatively young, or with younger families or who are, for whatever reason, free to go. At the middle and higher grades, with often greater difficulties in uprooting families, there are challenges that need to be handled in a sensitive manner.

· At an organisational level movement of staff on the scale envisaged will require careful management to avoid loss of corporate memory and knowledge within organisations. Provision of suitable accommodation and services will present varying challenges, depending on the location of new offices. As certain destinations will be more popular than others, some organisations may have difficulty putting suitably qualified staff in place. With careful planning and management all these challenges can be faced and overcome. Modern training methods and state of the art communications systems will help mitigate many of the difficulties.

· There can, of course be extremely positive organisational aspects to change on such a scale. It can encourage a re-assessment of long-standing procedures and processes, thus promoting greater efficiency. The necessity for fresh thinking facilitates changes in structures and systems that in turn lead to improved business practices. The introduction of the most up to date technology will help Departments to develop new and innovative ways to carry out their functions.

Confidence in public servants
· I have every confidence that public servants are professional, resourceful and committed enough to rise to the challenges posed by this ambitious programme and to recognise the opportunities it presents for them and for the country as a whole.

Sand

well what more do you want me to post a detailed map of where the trian tracks should be laid

No, course not. But do you think any party's manifesto isnt going to include Improving Public Transport? If increasing the use of public transport was a quick fix that could be accomplish inside a year or two do you think Fianna Fail wouldnt go for it? Be the heros? Secure the next election? Honestly no TD has a fecking breeze of how to manage traffic, no more than you or I. Theyre too busy kissing babies and attending funerals. Its the Civil Servants who study the issues and potential solutions, cost them and sum up whats possible and not possible for the Government.

As such whether its some eejit from FF, FG or Labour in the next time doesnt matter.

No a proper committed government could do things much faster than that

Doubt it. We all saw how long,expensive and how difficult it was to build LUAS. This is hailed as a great success even though its had more impact on Dublin Bus than car users.

Dublin Bus could not handle that demand at the moment but thats why they need investment

the block on improving Dublin Bus services is from the government side not the unions

Dublin Bus need more than a quick fix. Their service is lousy, their staff are generally ignorant bastards, their buses are old, dirty and polluted with tracker knackers. The serious level of reform that would be required to fix the company is resisted at every turn by unions - and serious reform is required down to the very culture of the company itself. You need only look at the health service and education for how effective throwing money at a problem is.

your misssing the point we already have thousands of houses we need to supply them with a viable public transport
by building new stations and new railway lines

Again, I refer you to LUAS.

Essentially what we really need to do is not throw houses down anywhere and everywhere and *then* put in vital services. We need to build the services first, then the houses. We also need to start building *up* in Dublin and not sprawling estates out into fecking Meath.

it makes far more economic sense to move the work closer to were a skilled labour pool is

Yeah, Dublin.

Have you ever tried getting a locksmith in the Roscommon/Sligo area in the Golden Pages? I have. I found *one* within a 40 mile radius. In Dublin youd find 40* within a one mile radius of you.

*Alright, exaggeration but you get the point.

then they should be forced to sell it for the benefit of the country the same way the NRA can compulsary purchase land needed for road projects

Khmer Rouge? Whats next, sending Dubliners out to work in the fields for the good of the country? That would make Tom Parlon Comrade No.1 I guess.

Roads benefit anyone and everyone who travels on them, houses only benefit the owners. If the owners of these houses are similarly forced to open their homes to anyone who wants to stay in them for the good of the country then you might have a case. Otherwise its just government sponsored theft.

CaptainPeacock

Sand wrote:

Have you ever tried getting a locksmith in the Roscommon/Sligo area in the Golden Pages? I have. I found *one* within a 40 mile radius. In Dublin youd find 40* within a one mile radius of you.

I won't even comment on that. Just look at the stupidity of the analogy.

uncivilservant

EO'C wrote:

It was absolutely vital to ensure the widest choice possible for public servants that decentralisation would be spread over a wide geographic area

How thoughtful, although I must admit it comes as quite a surprise to hear that keeping the staff happy is such a key part of the whole scheme.


In all seriousness, that is quite possibly one of the worst speeches I have ever had the misfortune to read. Regurgitated on-message nonsense entirely devoid of insight - other than the above revelation, that is.

Victor

I'm wondering out loud here, but what if one put in an FOI request on how dentralisation locations were decided ....

uncivilservant

Victor wrote:

I'm wondering out loud here, but what if one put in an FOI request on how dentralisation locations were decided ....

I'm no expert, but the decision process would most likely be covered by the section 19(?) exemption for cabinet papers.

Easily_Irritated

I haven't got the inclination to read all those pages of posts (altho I should probably have a look,but anyway)

I don't think its fair that civil servants think that they should get special treatment. All thats really happening is the company they are working for is relocating. The fact that their company is the government makes feck all difference.

If the likes of HP in kildare announced tomorrow that they were relocating to galway in 6 months/ a years time, its employees would have the choice of moving or getting a new job.

Why should it be any difference for civil servants, plus its not like this is a new idea. The government has been talking about it for years, almost a decade and have been saying its definitley happening for the past 4 years!

Hotblack Desiato

CaptainPeacock wrote:

I agree; places like Galway, Cork, Limerick, Waterford, Kilkenny... There are tens of thousands of people living in Dublin who would jump at the chance to move to one of those places, where homes are more affordable, transport is not murder and the air is breathable.

Perhaps. But in its infinite wisdom the Government has decided to exclude these places from the decentralisation programme, in favour of small unattrative towns in marginal constituencies.

I was disappointed, but not at all surprised, that FG and Labour have tried to milk decentralisation for their own ends (get more jobs moved to their constituencies) rather than oppose this folly of a plan outright on principle.

NewDubliner

Easily_Irritate wrote:

I don't think its fair that civil servants think that they should get special treatment. All thats really happening is the company they are working for is relocating. The fact that their company is the government makes feck all difference.

Do you really think the government is acting like a company?

When a company moves it would be to to improve efficiency, save money and give better service to the customer.

RicardoSmith

Since you pay taxes, you are paying (at least a billion) for a small % of civil servants to move down the country, and for the service to be less efficient but cost more to run. As a tax payer you should have a problem with this.

eigrod

As far as I know, no civil servant has a problem with decentralisation - in a format that makes sense to the state, the employee & the taxpayer......i.e. survey staff and then move to locations that are adequately subscribed. Civil servants have signed up to and participated in several such schemes over the past 20 years or so.

The motivations behind this decentralisation scheme are highly suspicious at best, and are being implemented in a completely haphazard and extremely expensive manner.

Off topic stuff on the rainbow poll has been merged into this more related thread.

Keep this one to decentalisation please

grumpytrousers

Not had time to read the 800ish posts here, but just thought i'd throw in me 2c on the whole decentralisation thing anyway.

The idea in itself isn't bad; that of having government agencies/offices/departments spread out over the country. Assuming for a second you've an electronic infrastructure that can support this (and it's a big assumption) then it shouldn't matter that much where, for instance, the Land Registry, the Prison Service, Teagasc or the HSE is based. For the most part.

Thanks to the fact that we are historically an agricultural country, one where, bar certain more developed regions the industrial revolution simply hasn't happened, the Ireland of the 21st century contains a disproportionately high number of backward towns. I should know. I live in one. Don't get me wrong, I love it, there's a pace of life thats relaxed, and I'm lucky enough to have a decent job. But there's plenty of, *ahem* younger folk for whom this place holds no allure, and as soon as they've done their time in University, they'll be taking a job where the bright lights are, in a bigger town where they might have, oh I don't know, a cinema.

The theory, as I understand it, is that decentralisation brings in a new set of people who will certainly have to work in a town, and probably live there, or nearby. In doing so, you effectively change the social structure of the town; you get more of the affluent folks what spend money, which tends to trickle down and benefit everybody.

Now, the problem of course is that, as somebody else said earlier on people end up getting shipped off to 'small unattractive towns'. Unfortuntely the fact remains that certain parts of the country WILL become stagnant unless something is done.

Simple as.

End of.

Full Stop.

While it would be nice to look at this matter purely from a 'value the taxpayer is getting' aspect, one needs to look at the loss to the country (i.e. outside the 'big cities') if one doesn't do this. So in the same way that the government subvents the railway line to Galway/Westport/Sligo even though they don't make money, the same applies to decentralisation.

Obviously politicians trying to make short term politicial capital by putting plum agencies in marginal constituencies sucks.

The trouble with decentralisation is that as a purely economic decision it can't ever make sense, but then maybe sometimes, society is bigger than the economy anyway...

ishmael whale

As you’ve probably guessed, these essential points have come up before. Taking it in sequence, public bodies such as Prison Service, HSE, have jobs to do and we’re not so flush with cash that we can happily add into that cost base just to move some staff to Longford or wherever. Nor can we be so confident that churning round the staff in all of the agencies won’t have any impact on the ability of the organistions to do their jobs, particularly where technical staff are concerned.

The main output we should expect from the HSE is an efficient health service, the main output we should expect from the Prison’s service is an efficient prison service etc etc. The idea that the objectives these organisation are meant to fulfil is secondary to the need to have some staff located in Longford is just screwy.

The logic you are putting down for benefits – that the location of these staff in various towns will do a lot to boost local economies – is indeed what advocates of the program would allege. However, on scrutiny this argument falls apart. Firstly, the national spatial strategy research (and other work going back to the Buchanon report) points out that to make any impact on drift of population to the East that you’ve noticed, there’s a need to concentrate resources in the regions.

Putting an office of 50 or 100 staff in a particular location makes no real impact on the essential trend. The youngsters you see will still leave for opportunities elsewhere. If there was concentration promoted within the regions – my favourite example of the moment would be moving the Garda training college from Templemore and integrating it with UCC or UL – then you might actually start seeing things happening. But the proposed decentralisation is just a total waste. It will make no significant impact in any of the 50 locations chosen and, if anything, will simply underwrite Dublin’s dominance in the scale of things.

One final point, because its come up a few times. The ‘trickle down’ thing that you mention would follow on from a decentralised office doesn’t actually exist. We tend to produce for export and buy imports, so there’s actually a very weak relationship between consumer expenditure and boosts to local enterprises. Some people have struggled with this a little, but its simply a fact. If you want I can direct you to a link that confirms this is simply a basic fact of Irish economic life.

In summary, decentralistion costs a bundle but brings no benefits.

NewDubliner

I've had another look at the transcript of O'Cuiv's speech to the Public Affairs Ireland Conference. Actually it was Micheal Finneran (FF/Roscommon) http://www.ballaghaderreen.com/public.htm#finneran who made unspecified threats to public servants who do not move:

Also speaking at the conference, the vice-chairman of the Joint Committee for Finance and the Public Service, Michael Finneran TD said that although the government hopes to reach agreement on the decentralisation programme through talks with the public sector unions, it will be prepared to take action should the talks fail. "Forced solutions, by their nature are measures of last resort and are rarely as effective as agreements reached on the basis of goodwill and fair compromise between parties. However, it would be an abandonment of the Government's responsibility to rule out options for what might happen should talks fail", he said.

The mind boggles: decentralisation at gun point? :eek:

Does anyone have more transcripts from the PAI conference? Clearly, the media have overlooked this eminent meeting.

RicardoSmith

Easily_Irritate wrote:

I haven't got the inclination to read all those pages of posts ...

grumpytrousers wrote:

Not had time to read the 800ish posts here,....

Well I can't be bothered to read your posts either :rolleyes: but like most people your happy to make a value judgement without doing your homework. Theres no business plan, or precident with any facts and figures behind the benefits of decentralisation. So would any other business spend a billion on a whim?

invincibleirish

i agree in principle with grumpytrousers, decentralisation should be a good thing, but the proposed decentralisation programme as set under the flynn reports is pretty much exactly the worse possible way to implement decentralisation in this country.grumpytrousers consult the national spatial strategy to see where the gov. is going wrong, what pains me is that its so patently obvious that the plan is so wrong and that after the changes the civil service has went thru over the years for the better a retrograde step like this is going to dent the image of the civil service again and add new layers of bureaucracy and reduce efficiency.

Easily_Irritated

RicardoSmith wrote:

Well I can't be bothered to read your posts either :rolleyes:

So you didn't read the post just quote it? yea, that makes sense.

RicardoSmith wrote:

Theres no business plan, or precident with any facts and figures behind the benefits of decentralisation

What are you talking about?! And Im the one who hasn't done my homework! The government has spent the last eight years compiling numerous business plans. Which support and highlight all the benefits of decentralisation. They're all public record so feel free to give em a read

RicardoSmith

Easily_Irritate wrote:

So you didn't read the post just quote it? yea, that makes sense.

Sorry I didn't read that either...

Easily_Irritate wrote:

What are you talking about?! And Im the one who hasn't done my homework! The government has spent the last eight years compiling numerous business plans. Which support and highlight all the benefits of decentralisation. They're all public record so feel free to give em a read

Yes and theres holes in those plans big enough to drive a truck through. Unlike a certain tunnel. Or the plans to have toll roads as a cost saving, but in fact cost the taxpayer more. Where are they building a new terminal, Dublin???

In our office 5% have applied to move. Say that number quadruples to 20%, that means they'll have to replace 80% of the office with new staff and put them in a new office somewhere. At the same time keeping the original 80% employed around dublin. Snce the majority of our work is in Dublin, that new 80% will spend a lot of time commuting back up to Dublin. Since the rest of the population isn't going to move over night.

But yeah those plans have all that covered....

NewDubliner

Easily_Irritate wrote:

The government has spent the last eight years compiling numerous business plans.

Policies are not business plans. The business plans are what the unfortunate departments are now trying to write after having the policies imposed on them. If there were business plans, we would have reliable estimates of the costs and benefits.

Which support and highlight all the benefits of decentralisation.

Indeed, the policies highlight or speculate as to the benefits, that's all they do.

They're all public record so feel free to give em a read

No they're not. The government deliberatly used the budget to initiate the scheme so that it could keep this information from public scrutiny.

ishmael whale

Easily_Irritate wrote:

....The government has spent the last eight years compiling numerous business plans. Which support and highlight all the benefits of decentralisation. They're all public record so feel free to give em a read

Can you link a few of these documents from the last eight years so we can see what you mean? My understanding is there is no deep thought behind this programme, which brings much by way of cost and nothing by way of benefit.

eigrod

Will the PAC act now or will they wait for 20 years to tell us the massive overspend on decentralisation ?

How OPW squandered your money

€19m wasted, €23m overspent . . . and now they're running decentralisation

MILLIONS of euro were wasted in bungled property deals by the government body that is now trying to secure new offices for decentralisation.

In a damning report to be published today, the Public Accounts Committee castigates the Office of Public Works for its shambolic handling of State property deals.

PAC chairman Michael Noonan and the committee's vice-chairman John McGuinness are expected to issue serious warnings about the risks of the OPW wasting millions more in buying and selling property to facilitate the Government's decentralisation programme.

Today's report paints an astonishing picture of systematic waste of taxpayers' money on properties that were frequently never used. It shows:

* €19m was spent on accommodation for asylum seekers but not a single person was housed in any of the properties;

* €26m was spent on the new Cork courthouse even though it originally had a budget of just €3.8m.

Mr Noonan said last night the committee's investigation into the how the OPW handled various property deals "would not inspire much confidence about their ability to properly manage the sourcing of property for the decentralisation programme".

Mr McGuinness said the PAC's findings showed "appalling inefficiency" in the OPW.

The PAC examined five properties bought by the OPW to house asylum seekers and its report found there was "a serious loss of value for money" in capital and recurrent expenditure on all five properties.

In total, €19.3m was spent on the five properties and of this €6.2m is not recoverable. The report points out there is a net loss of €5m to taxpayers with €2m of this arising from security and maintenance costs on all five properties because they remained idle for years.

Two weeks ago, the PAC was told that one of the properties - Ionad Follain in Carlow - was purchased for €1.3m in July 2000 is now worth only €500,000.

Today's report also deals extensively with the saga of Cork courthouse, a project that had an initial budget of €3.8m, which then rose to €6.3m and finally ended up costing €26.5m.

This project involved Cork County Council, the Courts Service and the OPW, and the PAC found that all three should share the blame for the loss of taxpayers' money.

The committee is also highly critical of how the OPW handled the acquisition of accommodation for the Probation and Welfare Service.

Its report highlights how the OPW insisted upon sourcing the accommodation at Donaghmeade Shopping Centre in Dublin, even though that exposed the State to paying the same rents as retail operators.

The normal rental fee for this kind of property was €11.50 per square foot but the OPW actually paid €20.31.

This meant the annual rental bill was €150,000. Worse still, the cost of fitting out the offices ended up at €1.5m - 10 times the original OPW estimate.

Also, legal complications arose that meant the offices remained empty for the first three years.

Brian Dowling
Political Correspondent

ishmael whale

There quite a good article by Frank McDonald at the link below. I’ve posted up what I see as the key bits. I think Easily_Irrate really needs to substantiate the claim that there are studies in the public domain that suggest decentralisation will be beneficial. No-one seems to have seen them.

http://www.ahcps.ie/newslettersissued/AHCPS%20June%202005%20Newsetter.pdf
Frank McDonald, Environment Editor, The Irish Times, at the AHCPS Annual Conference, May 6th 2005.

….In 1969, as [Noel] Dempsey noted, Colin Buchanan had set out to put things right by plotting a course for more balanced regional development to counter the unrestrained growth of Dublin. But this leading planner of the late 20th century had his blueprint torn to shreds by parish-pump politics. For the record, Buchanan’s plan proposed two “national growth centres” — Cork and Limerick-Shannon. By 1986, the population of Cork was to have reached 250,000, while the projection for Limerick-Shannon was 175,000. These two cities were to be complemented by five regional centres (Galway, Waterford, Sligo, Dundalk, Drogheda and Athlone) and four growth towns (Letterkenny, Cavan, Castlebar and Tralee)……

….The key thing was for a limited number of other centres to develop “critical mass” so that they could compete with Dublin. … After three years of dithering over Buchanan, Fianna Fail ministers decided in 1972 to adopt a “laissez faire” approach, allowing Dublin to expand to accommodate its “natural increase” in population, while pledging an IDA “advance factory” for virtually every town and village in Ireland. ...

With no other cities to match the momentum of Dublin, the share of Ireland’s population living in the Greater Dublin Area continued to grow until it was nudging 40% by the 2002 Census. That contrasts with a share of 25% in the mid-1920s..…….

The N[ational] S[patial] S[trategy] came so close to a “county towns” approach that it invited attack. Not only had Dublin, Cork, Limerick-Shannon, Galway and Waterford been named as “gateways”, but also Dundalk, Sligo, Letterkenny and a triangle formed by Athlone, Tullamore and Mullingar – “ATM”. There were also to be nine “hubs” ….. it designated far too many growth centres, spreading development as widely as possible, and as thinly, too. As a result, the likelihood is that nowhere will develop a sufficient “critical mass” to compete for investment with the economic engine of Dublin.…..

Twelve months later, Charlie McCreevy used his Budget statement of 4 December 2003 to announce the latest decentralisation programme. No less than 10,300 civil and public servants, including eight entire departments, were to be relocated from Dublin to 53 centres in 25 counties. …….The scale of this dispersal was so staggering that it led Dr Ed Walsh, former president of the University of Limerick, to remark that if the Government planned to move so many departments, “why not move all of them?” After all, it is one of the principal functions of a capital city to facilitate the process of government.

Garret FitzGerald saw the decentralisation plan as “a most flagrant example of the stroke mentality” which afflicts so much of Irish politics and which has done such damage to our economy and society... The blatant hypocrisy of ministers asserting that this decision has taken into account “the National Spatial Strategy, or even claiming that it represents the implementation of that strategy, has provided further
justification for the cynicism of the electorate about Irish politics”.

…… and for what? 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

….Richard Bruton has said, “the decentralisation agenda has never been debated in the Dail. No Government memorandum has accompanied it. No business case has been presented for it. No risk assessment of the effect on any of the agencies has been presented. No human resource plan has been developed. No proper assessment of the financial implications has been presented. None of the selected locations has been justified against criteria for successful regionalisation. No answer has been given to those who fear a huge loss of “organisational memory”. No answer has been
given to those who say that the dispersal of a majority of ministries across the countryside runs counter to international best practice”.

What the AHCPS described as “the most fundamental change in civil and public administration since the foundation of the State” is also being pushed through regardless of the cost. It was supposed to be “over 200 million” when the programme
was cobbled together, in secret, by Bertie Ahern, Mary Harney, Charlie McCreevy and Martin Cullen. The latest estimate is put at €900 million, all to be to forked out by
Irish taxpayers. That’s more than the extravagant cost of Dublin’s two Luas lines, more than the cost of 3,000 new buses, more than the wretched M3 motorway, and more than god knows how many hospital beds.

Last June, Michael Bannon, former professor of urban and regional planning at UCD had this to say: “In themselves, the Government’s proposals are ill-considered. They will damage the coherence and efficiency of the public service. They fly in the face of the National Spatial Strategy, and they are likely to sound the death knell for regional policy in Ireland. This reckless dispersal of government work is a follow-on from years of scattering industrial plants in every town and village, with the disastrous consequences we have today. Would an Irish government go to a corporation such as Intel and propose that it should break up its Leixlip campus in favour of thirty, forty or fifty dispersed locations? Not only does this adventure give us all a bad name, but it represents a tragic lost opportunity to do the right thing, to do it with wisdom and to do it well”.

uncivilservant

Nearly 350 civil servants are to get a €2,250 lump sum and six extra days' holidays to leave State offices in Abbotstown, once intended to be the home for the National Stadium, for new offices in Backweston, Co Kildare, 10 miles away.

The Department of Agriculture and Food and State Laboratory officials were awarded the package under the Civil Service Arbitration Board despite a 22-year-old ban on "disturbance money" for civil servants.

A one-off payment of €2,250 is for any staff member who has farther to travel to work or who incurs additional costs as a result of the relocation. In addition, each of them will get two days' extra leave for the year in which they make the transfer and for each of the following two years.

http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/ireland/2005/0622/734372912HM9ABBOTSTOWN.html

So are we still looking at no decentralisation disturbance money, I wonder, or is this another hidden cost yet to be factored into the plan?

p.s. Cha-ching!

NewDubliner

uncivilservant wrote:

http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/ireland/2005/0622/734372912HM9ABBOTSTOWN.html
So are we still looking at no decentralisation disturbance money, I wonder, or is this another hidden cost yet to be factored into the plan?

There are more bizarre things to come, this quote from a DIG/unions meeting indicates that the government intends to pay living/travel expenses to people who live and work outside of Dublin, to come to Dublin and learn the jobs of Dublin-based staff and then 'decentralise':

a)The question of payment of expenses for staff in provincial locations required to come to Dublin prior to re-locating. This matter is under consideration and no member of staff will be required to move until an offer is put to the Staff side
http://www.pseu.ie/docs/Decent34.doc

So: how long will it take (& how much will it cost) to take a general/administrative HEO, living in Castlebar, but prepared to 'decentralise' to Kildare, and train him/her to take ownership of a major government computer program?