Decentralisation

The_Conductor

Been busy lately- haven't had time to keep uptodate on decentralisation.
Anything happening?
Trying to get copies of the minutes from the PSEU meetings with the official side, even if they are sanitised crap....

Dinarius

There was a piece in the IT a couple of weeks ago stating that the Arts and Culture move to Killarney would commence shortly.

Like Marine to Clonakility, Killarney is oversubscribed, so I presume that they will push ahead. Also, politically speaking, the arts aren't worth a damn. So, risk wise, it's a no-brainer.

Marine to Clonakilty is another matter. It's imploding as I write. Marine, that is. Moving it to Clon will be a disaster.

D.

NewDubliner

Dinarius wrote:

There was a piece in the IT a couple of weeks ago stating that the Arts and Culture move to Killarney would commence shortly.D.

Any idea if people are moving from Dublin of if they're already working outside of the city? I hear that property prices in Killarney are nearly the same as Dublin.

Parlon's 32-storey sky-scraper near Heuston Station could be delayed a few years as there are no actual plans yet to move the Revenue computer centre which is located at ground-zero of the development. The move entails replacing 80% of the existing IT staff at a time when many nationally critical projects are in hand and a skills shortage is developing in the private sector.http://www.siliconrepublic.com/news/news.nv?storyid=single5035

Interviews are taking place for a new Director of IT (Asst. Sec). No doubt, rising to the challenge of the government's decentralisation demands will be high on the list of requirements.

Dinarius

Apparently, there is a piece in today's Indo stating that by the original deadline of December 2006, only 160(?) of the 10,000 will have been moved. Meanwhile, Parlon is quoted as saying it's full steam ahead.

Plus ca change...........

I heard this on Morning Ireland's paper review and don't have the time to find the piece online..........

D.

ishmael whale

It’s not just that the deadline was unrealistic. Its that the plan is just a bad idea from start to finish. Unfortunately, this kind of publicity will only add to the frenzy to create some illusion of ‘progress’ on this dumb plan at any cost.

http://www.unison.ie/irish_independent/stories.php3?ca=9&si=1428289&issue_id=12705
134: Out of 10,000 civil servants only this handful will meet deadline to move
ONLY 134 of the promised 10,000 civil servants will be moved by the December 2006 decentralisation target date. The full extent of the Government's difficulties on the thorny issue were exposed last night.
As Opposition parties dubbed it an unprecedented flop, the minister responsible for making it happen admitted that the original Charlie McCreevy deadlines for the decentralisation of so many were "unrealistic". Junior Minister Tom Parlon claimed it would be "full steam ahead" from now on.
"It takes time to organise something as large as this. There are staffing issues to be resolved, as well as planning and building new buildings. The important thing is that it is going to happen."
The issue has been a huge headache for the Government. The original three-year deadline, combined with huge opposition by civil and public servants as well as logistical problems, meant the timescale had to be pushed back. Late last year the Government slimmed down the proposals to a more realistic first wave of 3,400 officials.
It insisted the full 10,000 would be relocated in further waves. But Opposition parties claim not a single civil servant will be moved in time for the general election. Fine Gael's finance spokesman Richard Bruton said that despite an original promise of 10,000 civil servants being moved out of Dublin by the end of 2006, just 2pc of that original estimate will have been delivered.
"This Government got 2pc in their decentralisation exam, that's a failure in any one's language."
However, Mr Parlon claimed a number of other departments and agencies will follow soon after the first tranche. The Department of Finance will be the first to move. Staff will be relocated to Tullamore by September of next year. All the stops are to be pulled out to have finance officials in place as a showpiece to ensure their decentralisation plans do not crumble before the 2007 general election.
Mr McCreevy famously said that the Government deserved a massive public backlash if its decentralisation plan was not complete by the next election.
Efforts to gently break it to communities that their promised jobs won't arrive on time couldn't come at a worse time for the Government. This morning, Fine Gael leader Enda Kenny and Labour leader Pat Rabbitte hold their first meeting to negotiate a strategy for an alternative government.

eigrod

there are staffing issues to be resolved

Doh ! "We forgot to consider this in the original 3 year plan !"

uncivilservant

Did someone say "staffing issues"?

From today's Irish Times:

The Government will have to create over 6.000 new State jobs in Dublin for civil servants and semi-state employees who have refused to apply to transfer to new offices outside of the capital, it has emerged.

Under decentralisation, 10,000 civil and public servants were to move out of Dublin by the end of 2006 to 54 locations - though the slow pace of progress means only 1,000 will have moved to approximately six locations by the time the deadline expires.

Once it is completed, however, it now emerges that 3,500 civil servants and 2,600 semi-state employees will be surplus to current staffing needs because though their jobs will have transferred, they will have remained.

Following the changes, there will be 2,737 clerical officer grade jobs in Dublin-based Civil Service offices, though over 3,800 have made it clear that they want to stay, while 2.000 higher executive officers will be available to fill 1,340 jobs.

The reality that 6,000 posts that currently do not exist will have to be found has not been questioned by Department of Finance management in negotiations with trades unions over the last number of months, union sources told The Irish Times yesterday.

Over 1,150 executive officer grade jobs will remain in Dublin if the decentralisation plan is fully completely, but there are nearly 2,000 such civil servants who do not want to move, while there will be 630 too many higher executive officers, 143 staff officers, 315 assistant principal officers and 171 principal officers for the jobs available.

The situation is not any better in the semi-states affected by the move, where 2,164 staff will have to be found other work because their positions have been transferred to other places and they have not chosen to go with it.

Meanwhile, an internal Department of Social and Family Affairs memorandum reveals the plans to fully move to Carrick-on-Shannon by the end of 2006 cannot be met.

"The Department of Finance have now advised the Department that suitable accommodation has been secured in Carrick-on-Shannon, which is likely to be available to the Department at the end of 2006," said the memo, seen by The Irish Times.

However, the new office will not be big enough: "The accommodation will not be sufficient to take all 220 posts announced for Carrick-on-Shannon initially.

"Therefore, decentralisation to Carrick-on-Shannon will be done in two phases. At this time we have no indication as to when the second phase will happen," said the memo.

Defending the progress being made, the Minister of State for Finance, Mr Tom Parlon, said 1,000 staff would be transferred by the end of 2006. The pace would quicken in the first quarter of 2007 when five office blocks would become available in Portlaoise, Limerick, Drogheda, Newcastlewest, Loughrea and Longford. Fine Gael TD Richard Bruton said the introduction of the decentralisation programme "flew in the face of all established procedures for ensuring sound decision-making".

Those figures will only increase when actual offers of actual placement are actually made and the people who actually only expressed an interest so they wouldn't be caught up in the churn reply with an "Actually... no thanks."

eigrod

uncivilservant wrote:

Those figures will only increase when actual offers of actual placement are actually made and the people who actually only expressed an interest so they wouldn't be caught up in the churn reply with an "Actually... no thanks."

Exactly. And probably all of those who turn down the offer will be those living in Dublin who had a vague notion of selling up and moving down. The number of people who will actually "up sticks" and move will be miniscule thus negating the main motiviation behind this daft, daft, daft scheme.

pete

http://www.finance.gov.ie/documents/decentralisation/DIGreportjuly05.pdf


The Decentralisation Implementation Group progress report has just appeard on the finance website.

pete

pete wrote:

http://www.finance.gov.ie/documents/decentralisation/DIGreportjuly05.pdf


The Decentralisation Implementation Group progress report has just appeard on the finance website.

summary: everything's grand. problems? what problems?

nothing to see here. move along, citizen.

eigrod

pete wrote:

http://www.finance.gov.ie/documents/decentralisation/DIGreportjuly05.pdf


The Decentralisation Implementation Group progress report has just appeard on the finance website.

9 pages + 3 pages of tables !!!!! Jeezzzz, it took them more than 1 year to put that together ! They must have killed themselves with the effort. How much is Finbarr Flood getting for this ?

Is there anybody out there willing to set down the difficult aspects of this project & propose how to address them ?

ishmael whale

The report is skirting around the costs identified. For example, there seems to be a proposal that ICT staff would be replaced by non ICT staff put through a selection process and certified training for the roles they will be fulfilling. Naturally, this is just trotted out without any mention of the cost involved in such retraining and, indeed, what happens to the surplus staff who will still be on the payroll.

There’s plenty of cost out there, all for absolutely no benefit.

http://www.businessworld.ie/livenews.htm?a=1208120;s=rollingnews.htm
6,000 civil servents refuse to move
Thursday, July 07 07:28:29
The State will have to provide employment for 6,000 civil servents who have refused the offer to decentralise around the country.
Under decentralisation, 10,000 civil and public servants were to move out of Dublin by the end of 2006 to 54 locations - though the slow pace of progress means only 1,000 will have moved to approximately six locations by the time the deadline expires.

Once it is completed, however, it now emerges that 3,500 civil servants and 2,600 semi-state employees will be surplus to current staffing needs because though their jobs will have transferred, they will have remained, the Irish Times reported this morning.

Following the changes, there will be 2,737 clerical officer grade jobs in Dublin-based Civil Service offices, though over 3,800 have made it clear that they want to stay, while 2,000 higher executive officers will be available to fill 1,340 jobs.

There’s also a bit of bluster from John O’Donoghue in the Examiner. Is anyone actually impressed by this kind of rubbish?

http://www.examiner.ie/pport/web/ireland/Full_Story/did-sg-MDhdP4gKt2.asp
06/07/05
Decentralisation to hit Killarney in early 2007
KILLARNEY will be one of the first centres in the country to receive civil servants as part of the Government’s decentralisation programme, Arts, Sport and Tourism Minister John O’Donoghue said yesterday. He said 140 personnel from his department will have transferred to Killarney by the early part of 2007….. ‘’It will be the most prestigious building that will go up in Killarney,’’ Mr O’Donoghue said.

NewDubliner

ishmael whale wrote:

The report is skirting around the costs identified. For example, there seems to be a proposal that ICT staff would be replaced by non ICT staff put through a selection process and certified training for the roles they will be fulfilling.

Given that the IT areas regularly trawl the general service for IT talent, unless they lower the standards, I cannot see them finding any new talent, especially given the need to decentralise. This then leads to offering promotions to staff, which may or may not yield results, given the extra responsibility, possibly moving them from what they're best at & the fact that they obviously are not keen to move. Next, then is hiring new staff in a highly competitive IT recruitment market.

Expensive, possibly unworkable as there is nothing to encourage skilled staff from Dublin to assist in the hand-over of their jobs before they are made virtually redundant.

ishmael whale

The newspeak is great. “All staff issues will be dealt with in a fair and humane way” hardly explains whether the taxpayer is expected to fork out an extra unneeded 6000 salaries just make this unnecessary programme happen.

But the clear picture is that the evidence that the programme is falling apart is simply leading to more frenzied attempts to create an impression of progress, rather than simply dropping the idea. Its a dumb idea, it didn't get them any votes. Why persist?

http://www.unison.ie/irish_independent/stories.php3?ca=9&si=1429147&issue_id=12711
Decentralisation one of the biggest flops in history of State, says Labour

Friday July 8th 2005
THE Government's decentralisation plan has been dubbed 'one of the biggest flops in the history of the State' by the Labour party. The progamme came in for scathing criticism after it was revealed that just 134 civil servants out of 10,000 will have been relocated by the 2006 deadline.

Labour claimed it was clear that little planning was put into the proposal, which would cost the taxpayer a lot of money. "The Government has led rural communities up the garden path in a very crude way, telling them they were going to have government departments located in their town. It's all talk and bluster," Labour TD Joan Burton claimed.

Fine Gael, meanwhile, accused the Government of making a total failure of the proposal with "ham-fisted handling". Finance spokesman Richard Bruton said: "The introduction of the decentralisation programme flew in the face of all established procedures for ensuring sound decision-making".
The Green Party labelled the relocation programme "a cynical ploy which messed with people's lives and careers for short-term electoral gains" and said it had "spectacularly backfired".

Minister for Community, Gaeltacht and Rural Affairs Eamon O Cuiv accused opposition parties of having an anti-rural agenda and said their rural members should "hang their heads in shame". "Statements from the parties attacking decentralisation have shown that they have no understanding of the importance of balanced regional development nor of its positive consequent impact on the lives of rural people," he said.

He was accompanying junior minister Tom Parlon on a visit to a site at Knock, Co Mayo, which has been earmarked as the new headquarters for the Department of Rural, Community, and Gaeltacht Affairs. Mr Parlon said he was confident that the decentralisation of all 10,000 civil servants would be complete by 2009.

He said the scheme would require quite a bit of swapping of personnel in different government departments, but he was confident this would happen. And Cuiv promised: "All staff issues will be dealt with in a fair and humane way".

pete

ishmael whale wrote:

The newspeak is great. “All staff issues will be dealt with in a fair and humane way” hardly explains whether the taxpayer is expected to fork out an extra unneeded 6000 salaries just make this unnecessary programme happen.

But the clear picture is that the evidence that the programme is falling apart is simply leading to more frenzied attempts to create an impression of progress, rather than simply dropping the idea. Its a dumb idea, it didn't get them any votes. Why persist?

oh you and your anti-rural agenda!

Actually, the majority of the decentralisation programme seems to be (very!)slowly morphing into what it all should have been to begin with - a medium to long term project phased in over 5-10 years with staff moves planned, flagged, and facilitated well in advance.

Unfortunately, those on the 'early movers' list still have a gun to the head.

ishmael whale

pete wrote:

oh you and your anti-rural agenda!.

You’ll notice how in O’Cuiv’s mindset ‘rural’ means ‘anywhere that's not Dublin.’ i.e. From his perspective Waterford City is rural, while a smaller town like Killarney or Portlaoise is akin to an unspoilt tropical rainforest.

pete wrote:

Actually, the majority of the decentralisation programme seems to be (very!)slowly morphing into what it all should have been to begin with - a medium to long term project phased in over 5-10 years with staff moves planned, flagged, and facilitated well in advance.

Indeed, however the scheme is just a waste at any pace.

Meanwhile, its that man again denying the figures published by his own Department that lead to the inevitable conclusion that the net effect of the decentralisation will involve carrying an extra 6,000 posts that would otherwise be unneeded.

http://www.sbpost.ie/post/pages/p/story.aspx-qqqid=6355-qqqx=1.asp
….. Parlon denied recent media reports that there would be a surplus of 6,000 civil servants as a result of the need to create posts for those who were refusing to relocate.

“The Department of Finance has only begun to align people to jobs. There is no basis for that figure, and it's not going to be the case that the department will allow a situation to develop that civil servants will be idly sitting at their desks,” he said. …..

Presumably this means the staff left sitting idly in Ballina after the housing grants scheme was abolished don’t exist, any more than the Agriculture staff in Castlebar that are surplus to requirements because of the simplified EU grants system.

There should be a line of questioning along the lines of the ‘follow the money’ in Watergate. Lets call it ‘Follow the Cartographers.’ Where will all the Ordnance Survey Cartographers that don’t want to go to Waterford be located? How exactly will the department/Parlon ensure that they are not sitting idly at their desks? As to inter-service mobility, if a Cartographer decides he’d like to try his hand at being an Architect in the Office of Public Works, how exactly would that be handled? Alternatively, if he decides he wants to try his hand at tourism promotion and opts to move to Bord Failte, how will that be accommodated?

ishmael whale

Sorry, I keep forgetting the benefit for all this expenditure. Remind me again.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2091-1687973,00.html
July 10, 2005

Fianna Fail councillor wins decentralisation contract
RICHARD OAKLEY


ONE of the first contracts to be awarded under the government’s decentralisation plan has gone to a Fianna Fail councillor. John Flanagan, a property developer who sits on Tullamore town council, has sold a building in the Co Offaly town to the state that will be used to house the relocated Department of Finance. Both Flanagan and the Office of Public Works (OPW), which awarded the contract, have refused to say how much was paid in the deal.
The office block, which needs further construction work, will become the home of the Department of Finance when it moves from its current location on Merrion Street next year. The building is situated in the Central Business Park in Clonminch in Tullamore, where Flanagan, a businessman, owns up to 25 acres.
The OPW said the contract was awarded through the normal tendering process to Flanagan because his offer was the most competitive. The building, which is located near three other government departments, was the most suitable, it said. Flanagan confirmed the sale this weekend, but refused to discuss the details.
The deal with Flanagan is one of two involving private developers that has been finalised recently. A second contract for land in Clonakilty in Co Cork has been awarded to Michael McCarthy, the owner of Carbery Plastics. McCarthy has won the contract to supply a site for the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources. He was not available for comment this weekend and no further details were available from the OPW.
Fas, the state training agency, is to buy a site in Birr, Co Offaly, for at least €275,000 an acre for its new HQ under the decentralisation plan. The move has been provisionally approved by the Department of Finance. The 5.9-acre site is likely to cost at least €1.6m. The price per acre is substantially more than the €200,000 per acre the state controversially paid for land at Thornton in Dublin where a new prison complex is to be built. Joan Burton of the Labour party said the price was “shocking”, but Fas said it had sought professional advice on the move.
A total of 400 staff are needed in Birr by 2009 to make the move work, but so far only 41 Fas staff have said they are prepared to move from Dublin. The government has been strongly criticised for its insistence on pushing ahead with decentralisation despite a reluctance from civil servants to volunteer to move. Details of the cost of property deals are likely to add to this pressure.
Burton said: “The whole process now features significant elements of farce and at the end the taxpayer is going to be left with a huge bill.” Unions representing civil servants want the decentralisation plan, due to be completed by 2009, to be extended over the next 10 years.
Last week it emerged that only 134 of the 10,000 civil servants earmarked for decentralisation would be relocated by the government’s original deadline of 2006. Tom Parlon, the minister with responsibility for the OPW, has said the full cost of decentralisation cannot be known at this stage. He has defended the progress made so far and argued that much of the land will be obtained at good prices.

The_Conductor

ishmael whale wrote:

Presumably this means the staff left sitting idly in Ballina after the housing grants scheme was abolished don’t exist, any more than the Agriculture staff in Castlebar that are surplus to requirements because of the simplified EU grants system.

Actually there is minor civil war breaking out on this one.....
The Department of Ag staff are in the process of being transferred (in many cases against their wishes) to the Department of Justice for the purpose of running the Garda Pulse computer system (and administering the youth identification schemes, and running the licence points system). From the flexitime system with a core of 10AM to 12.30 and 2.30 to 4.00, people are now being told they are on shift work, on a 7 day week basis, and no longer have public holidays/bank holidays off. In addition, to the best of my knowledge- its still not clear who they are officially employed by- i.e. is it the Department of Justice or the Garda Commissioner (or the private company who sold the Guards system in the first place). Its still being discussed at union level, but an advance party of COs, EO and a few HEOs are in situ.
Meanwhile in DAF- according to the latest decentralisation update- the IDA building on the Mountrath Road outside Portlaoise, which has been chosen as the new headquarters, still has not been notified to the Department of Finance. ??? Strange.....

RicardoSmith

smccarrick wrote:

....From the flexitime system with a core of 10AM to 12.30 and 2.30 to 4.00, people are now being told they are on shift work, on a 7 day week basis, and no longer have public holidays/bank holidays off. ...

Ouch. Umm so everyone can rearrange their family life, kids, creches, etc, to have less quality of life, when one of the attaction for decentralisation is to offer staff a better quality out of Dublin. Why would they move to have a worse quality of life?

Talk about shooting yourself in both feet..... :rolleyes:

rsynnott

Are there any arguments for decentralisation that will stand up to even vague scrutiny? The whole thing sounds barking mad to me...

NewDubliner

This from the Dublin-based, 'anti-rural' 'Sunday Tribune', July 10:

THE absurdity and wastefulness of the government's decentralisation programme was highlighted once more with the disclosure that at least 6,000 public servants will be left in Dublin, on the state payroll but with nothing to do, when the whole process is complete. As a measure of government incompetence this takes the biscuit.

The Minister for Finance, Brian Cowen, would do the state some service if he just called a halt to the farce right now. It should be possible to put some scaled down version of decentralisation into operation but the plan as it stands is not just mad, it is bad on every level.

The huge expense involved in paying thousands of civil servants in Dublin to do nothing for the rest of their careers, and then paying them index-linked pensions for the rest of their lives, is not even the worst aspect of the plan. Neither is the hugely expensive property acquisition programme, ridiculous and all as it is.

The truly damaging and dangerous aspect of decentralisation is that the civil service is being systematically wrecked on a whim. The implications of that dreadful policy error will be with us for decades, if the programme proceeds as planned, and future generations will look back on the mistake with incredulity.

One of the foundation stones of Irish democracy has been a committed and generally incorruptible civil service. The structure was bequeathed to a newly independent Ireland by the British in 1922 and was subsequently built on by the founders of the state who ensured that the civil service remained independent of party politics.

Over the decades there have always been calls for some kind of decentralisation programme and in fact an extensive programme did take place from the 1970s onwards. Departments like Social Welfare, Education, Environment and the Revenue Commissioners established large offices at various points around the country.

More than a third of the civil service engaged in the delivery of services to the public was decentralised in this programme but the headquarters of each department remained in Dublin, at the centre of political power. It was the decision to send whole departments and state agencies out of the capital that struck at the heart of the system.

What made it worse was that the dismantling of a structure, which served the nation for 80 years, was casually announced by Charlie McCreevy in his budget of 2003. There was no prior consultation or detailed assessment of the policy options, no memorandum to government or Dail debate or engagement with all the interest groups involved. He then proceeded to compound his mistake by quickly establishing a Decentralisation Implementation Group chaired by Phil Flynn, the former president of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions and former vice president of Sinn Fein.

McCreevy has since departed to Brussels and Flynn resigned after he was questioned by Gardai investigating a massive IRA money laundering operation in the wake of the Northern Bank robbery.

The departure of the two men centrally involved in the programme should have been the signal to call at least a temporary halt to assess the viability of the scheme. Nothing of the kind happened, however, and the new minister, Brian Cowen, continued on the path set down by McCreevy. After Flynn's departure the respected figure of Finbar Flood, the former chairman of the Labour Court, was appointed to oversee the implementation.

In his latest report, Flood has openly and honestly outlined the problems he is encountering in putting the programme into effect. One of the things he needs to do for the scheme to have any chance of success is to get the unions to agree to allow people to transfer between the civil service and the various state agencies that are being decentralised.

So far the public service unions have offered furious resistance to the move. "Resolution of the outstanding issues is central to the overall implementation process in the state agencies," said the report of Flood's Group, but there is no sign that those issues can be resolved.

In the civil service itself promotions in the departments listed for decentralisation are now being restricted to those who give an undertaking to move. That worked as sufficient incentive for some people to agree to leave Dublin against their better judgement. It did not, however, get over the problem of how to persuade people to move to another location at the same grade.

Finance is now preparing to take the incentive policy one step further by offering promotions far and wide to civil servants who agree to move. There is an obvious danger that willingness to move to a specific town rather than ability will became the criteria for promotion. That policy is a direct threat to the quality of administration in the civil service.

When it comes to the professional grades, though, even that kind of incentive scheme won't work. If professional staff refuse to go then there is no way out of the problem.

Meanwhile, the Office of Public Works is gaily going about the business of building or refurbishing office space for decentralisation. A total of 14 new offices will be ready in 2007,12 more in 2008 and 15 in 2009. Properties have been identified for all of the transfers due by the end of next year.

Both parties in government appear equally committed to the madness and there seems little chance that there will be any change of heart before the next election. What has been surprising though is that opposition parties have not zoned in much more strongly on the issue as one that epitomises government incompetence and waste.

Competence is going to be one of the key issues at the next election and decentralisation represents the pinnacle of the government's failure on this front. Fine Gael and Labour have criticised aspects of the scheme but they seem reluctant to alienate voters in the towns earmarked for decentralisation by committing themselves to calling it off, at least in its current guise. It is precisely this kind of political fudge that must raise questions about whether opposition parties have the courage required to take over the reins of government.

NewDubliner

This, from another part of the 'anti-rural Dublin media', the (Cork) Examiner:

Why we remain unmoved Friday, July 8, 2005

Decentralisation tales provide evidence of the management deficit at the heart of Government

Recently, the boss of a State agency recalled that he has spent much of the past three years overseeing his organisation's move to the West of Ireland. While he is in favour of the move, he admits that he has found the whole process pretty time-consuming. In fact, he reckons that around one half of his time over that period has been absorbed in handling all the different aspects of the move. As a result his organisation has had to put important plans for strategic development on the back burner. The point is clear. In this case it makes eminent sense for the organisation to make a move close to much of its client base, yet there is clear dislocation involved.

Another state agency - the Equality Tribunal - has just produced an in-depth implementation plan dealing with its proposed move to Portarlington in Offaly.

In a sense the organisation can count itself fortunate. It was originally intended that it would be moved to Roscrea in North Tipperary, a location beyond the reach of even today's intrepid army of long-distance commuters. Its Offaly location is at least on a commuter rail line. But as the plan makes clear, the agency is going to have to get by with a whole new complement of staff. This means that a whole corps of highly-experienced people will be lost to the public service.

The tribunal warns of a shortage of key staff, hearings being held away from base and an increase in the backlogs of undecided cases. The body deals with areas of quite considerable legal complexity and its rulings have, generally, been both reasonable and well reasoned. In practice, much of its work may now have to be farmed out to outside legal specialists if Ireland is not to find itself at the sharp end of litigation taken by people arguing that their legal rights under EU law have been frustrated.

At the tribunal's recent annual report, the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Michael McDowell, suggested that more of the work of the Tribunal could be outsourced - to IT and legal providers - but at what cost to the taxpayer? Presumably, agreements with the trade unions will dictate that the organisation will have the same compliment of people at before. However, with greater outsourcing the overall cost of running the body will increase - and significantly so. As students of this country's tribunals of enquiry will tell you, the services of lawyers do not come cheap.

It is proposed in the implementation plan that the option of a dual location for the tribunal (a modestly sized organisation) be looked at "so that the pool of candidates (for tribunal posts) is not unduly depleted."

So on top of a surging payroll bill you will also have the bill of servicing two different HQs, not to mention a possible further bill for renting space for Tribunal hearings.

This is all good news for landlords and providers of professional services, but once again it is the taxpayer right down the line who foots the bill. It is not hard to visualise the picture where many more agencies, State bodies, departments, double up in terms of accommodation, and where spending on outside consultants mushrooms. Much of these services may end up being provided by recently retired public officials who at least know their way round the organisations in which they used to work.

The decentralisation debate has gone a little quiet recently. These days it is hard to look beyond the health service when it comes to real horror stories.

However, these slow burn issues have a habit of catching up with the powers that be and, ultimately, with the public. Consumers of health services are suffering, in part because of decisions taken several years ago which have resulted in a proliferation of bodies and new armies of managers and administrators who have had to be kept fed and watered. All of this has come at the expense of frontline staff and services - hence the huge blockages in A&E.

The huge pressure on frontline staff may in turn produce an explosion in employee sickness claims further down the line, and all because the politicians in power must satisfy various local lobbies and come up with various sinecures for administrators.

It is remarkable that despite real problems of management at the heart of Government, our economy continues to be so strong, but there are warning lights flashing. Consumer debt continues to soar, reminding one that much of our current economic boom is built on foundations of plastic. Foreign direct investment is down sharply in the past year and we are part of a trading bloc that now produces less scientists and engineers than India, according to British PM, Tony Blair in his recent address to the European Parliament.

We must be sowing the seeds of future success now by investing in our educational infrastructure. However, large sums are being diverted into grand projects, such as the decentralisation plan, money that could be put to much better use elsewhere.

NewDubliner

This from the 'Irish Independent', July 22nd. Has anyone any idea how much the Department of Finance 'protocol' for replacing IT staff will cost?

A GOVERNMENT plan to computerise forestry data trebled in cost from €5.3m to over €15m and took five times longer than anticipated, according to a report published by the Public Accounts Committee yesterday.

Speaking at the launch the PAC chairman, Fine Gael's Michael Noonan, said the case was a "pilot" study on the extent to which decentralisation can end up costing huge amounts of money and creating new difficulties if not properly managed.

According to Mr Noonan, the PAC discovered that one of the major factors in the trebling of the costs and the huge time-lag was a decision to transfer the forestry service from the Department of Agriculture to the Department of Marine and Natural Resources in 1997 and the subsequent decision to decentralise that division to Wexford in 1998.

The report found that moving the forestry division from one department to another resulted in the loss of a well-resourced and experienced technology division, with the new department having fewer than four full-time staff available and no experience of systems development.

That was then compounded by the decentralisation transfer that resulted in the loss of experienced staff with a turnover of 90pc in administrative staff.

According to the PAC report, an independent review of the project was undertaken in 2000 and that found that there was not sufficient support for the team in the forestry service.

"There was a recognition, at the highest level, that the project had gone badly wrong and a determination to find out how that happened.

The outcome of that review was a painful lesson for the Department. There are now more than 60 people in the information systems division, including more than 40 specialists," the PAC reported noted.

When the project commenced in 1997 its estimated cost was €5.3m and the classification of forests was expected to take over 11 months.

The PAC discovered that up to 2002 the overall cost was €9.2m and when staff and other technology costs were included the final cost was about €15m, a 300pc increase on the original estimate.

Instead of the project taking 11 months, the classification of forests took 53 months, five times longer than intended.

Likewise, the time allocated for the soils analysis project was 36 months but it has already taken 77 months and it is still not complete.

In explaining the cost overruns and delays to the PAC the Department said one of the main reasons was that key people had been transferred and 90pc of the administrative staff brought in was completely new to this area.

Mr Noonan said this particular project highlighted the potential dangers of losing staff with specialist skills in decentralisation moves.

He said it appeared there was a big focus on the property side of decentralisation, getting rid of existing properties and acquiring new ones, without sufficient focus on ensuring that proper staffing plans are put in place.

In its recommendations the PAC warned that the importance of "maintaining key resource and skill levels on decentralisation cannot be over emphasised.

The lessons learnt in this case should be applied to the implementation of the current decentralisation programme."

The PAC acknowledged that despite the additional costs, the computerisation programme for forestry had yielded benefits.

Brian Dowling
Political Correspondent

The proposed 'protocol' for replacing IT staff :

Following consultation with Departments and Offices, the Department of Finance developed a protocol for addressing any ICT staff losses that may occur during decentralisation. This protocol suggests that organisations should, when filling decentralising ICT posts, follow a sequence that includes CAF transfers initially, followed by promotion competitions, followed by external recruitment in the event of shortfalls still existing. The protocol would allow non-IT personnel to apply for decentralising ICT posts subject to successful completion of an ICT recruitment process that includes aptitude testing, interviewing and certified ICT training.

jd

more

Meanwhile, PAC chairman Michael Noonan said time and cost over-runs for a forestry services computer system were indefensible.

Launching the fourth interim report of his committee on Mr Purcell’s 2002 report, he said the system was projected to cost €5.3m but ended up costing €9.2m. The report also highlighted that the project was to take 11 months but took 53 months.

Mr Noonan said the key reason for the delay and over-runs was that the forestry division had decentralised to Wexford around this time and had lost 100% of its IT staff and 90% of its key administrative staff.

RicardoSmith

Thats shocking missmanagment :eek:

NewDubliner

RicardoSmith wrote:

Thats shocking missmanagment :eek:

Don't worry, the Department of Finance now has a 'protocol' which will manage the replacement of all IT staff by non-Dubliners. It works something like this:

1: Look for volunteers who are prepared to move at their own expense.
2: If nobody volunteers, offer promotions.
3: If that doesn't work, recruit at commercial rates.

So, why volunteer?

uncivilservant

Today's Sunday Business Post reports:

The Department of Justice has confirmed that it is to take a short-term lease on the former Bank of Scotland head office on Harcourt Street, Dublin 2.

A spokeswoman for the department said it was relocating staff who were “temporarily housed in sub-standard accommodation in an OPW-owned building in Ballsbridge'‘ in Dublin 4, to the Georgian-style offices.

The Department of Justice sold its headquarters on St Stephen's Green last year for €52.3 million to Shelbourne Developments. It bought the building in September 2000 for €36.5 million, making the government a profit of €15.8 million. Shelbourne Developments is now doubling the size of the original building.

At the time of the sale, the junior minister at the Department of Finance, Tom Parlon, described the sale as “a clear signal that the government is serious about the decentralisation programme'‘.

“The proceeds of the sale will form a major part of the funding for decentralisation,” said Parlon.

Eyebrows are now likely to be raised at the decision to lease offices ahead of the government's planned decentralisation programme, so close to the building that was recently sold off.

The Harcourt Street building, which is known as Pinebrook House, was originally the headquarters of ICC Bank, and is owned by an investment fund put together by Davy Stockbrokers.

When the building came on the market earlier this year, letting agent Davin Auctioneers said it was in a position to offer flexibility in terms of rent and length of lease on the property.

So what's this going to cost, then? Well, earlier this year the Irish Times reported:

Pinebrook House was originally the headquarters of ICC Bank which was acquired several years ago by Bank of Scotland.

It is owned by an investment fund put together by Davy Stockbrokers and has just 10 years remaining on the lease at a current of €1 million.

The office building has a floor area of some 3,898 sq m (41,000 sq ft) with a generous underground car-parking allocation. Individual floor areas average around 650 sq m (7,000 sq ft).

The bank has upgraded the building in recent years by installing CAT 5 cabling, raised access floors and air conditioning. Individual suites are available at €375 per sq m (€35 per sq ft).

So, assuming we can interpret "flexibility in terms of rent and length of lease on the property" as meaning shorter lease = higher rent, that's at least €1million per annum (far more if you bear in mind that €35x41,000sqft = €1,435,000) to accommodate staff from a building sold off last year on the basis that "...proceeds of the sale will form a major part of the funding for decentralisation."

Nice.

NewDubliner

This from, Oireland on Sunday, worthwhile criticism, but they're not penetrating to the question of huge, undisclosed, staff-related costs even if they do get enough volunteers:

Fiasco:The plan to disperse civil servants throughout the length and breadth of the State is once again in crisis. Detailed information, obtained exclusively by Ireland on Sunday from informed sources at the Office of Public Works, show that just Eur 337,000 of Eur 15.3m allocated in 2005 for the decentralisation programme was spent in the first five months of the year.

This represents barely 2pc of the total set aside by the OPW for planning matters and legal services relating to premises earmarked for decentralisation. The ambitious programme is already struggling, since so few civil servants have volunteered to move.

Evidence is now mounting that the Government cannot deliver on former finance minister Charlie McCreevy's promises, made in his final budget speech in 2003.

In Tullamore, Co. Offaly, a sorry patch of stony, grey soil lies barren, awaiting the supposedly imminent arrival of the new headquarters of the Department of Finance. Nothing had been spent on the proposed move by June 1st. An OPW spokeswoman said: `The commissioners recently signed a contract to purchase block two of the Central Business Park in Tullamore. Construction has just begun on the site and is expected to be ready for occupation late next summer.'

This statement appears somewhat optimistic, given the empty site in Tullamore and in light of the OPW's somewhat colourful history when it comes to leasing expensive properties which are then left unoccupied. That the OPW might find itself with another empty office seems highly likely, given the figures obtained by IoS, showing that interest in proposed Department of Finance positions in Tullamore are currently at derisory levels. At Principal Officer grade, just 29pc of the advertised posts can be filled. At Assistant Principal Officer level, the interest level is even lower at 18pc. At Higher Executive Officer level, the figure is just 15pc. There have been no applications at all for Staff Officer positions in Tullamore.

In Killarney, Co. Kerry, Arts, Sport and Tourism Minister John O'Donoghue poses above with OPW Minister Tom Parlon outside a boarded-up, derelict building to announce the alleged relocation of his offices. In reality, just Eur 19,000 of the Eur 519,000 set aside for the Killarney HQ this year had been spent by June 1st. According to OPW sources, this Eur 19,000 was largely swallowed up by legal fees in the negotiation process for the premises, which currently has a `sale agreed' sign posted on its facade.

Asked if legally binding contracts had been signed on the Killarney building, an OPW spokeswoman simply said the sign had been unveiled on July 5 and the project would be put out to tender next month. Elsewhere, the picture is even worse. Of the 35 locations assigned decentralisation budgets for 2005, just eight - including Killarney - have managed to spend any of the money set aside for them this year.

The seven other locations where money has been spent in 2005 and Government departments assigned are: Sligo (Social and Family Affairs); Longford (Justice, Equality and Law Reform); Carlow (Enterprise Trade and Employment); Drogheda (Social Welfare); Knock Airport (Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs); Newcastle West (Revenue Commissioners) and Trim (Office of Public Works). Not one has spent anywhere near the sum allocated for 2005. In the case of the OPW's proposed new HQ in Trim, Co. Meath, just Eur 61,000 has been spent out of a total of Eur 561,000 for 2005. This figure represents the highest amount spent by any Government department so far this year on the doomed decentralisation project.

The 26 other locations identified in the OPW's 2005 plans for decentralisation have seen no expenditure whatsoever this year. Between them, they account for Eur 14,963,000 of taxpayers' money set aside for the controversial plan's implementation in 2005. Meanwhile, not one of the 39 towns identified nationally for decentralisation has yet managed to fill its quota of civil servants across the six necessary grades.

The plan was supposed to move 10,300 civil servants to 53 locations across the country.

BolBill

NewDubliner wrote:

Don't worry, the Department of Finance now has a 'protocol' which will manage the replacement of all IT staff by non-Dubliners. It works something like this:

1: Look for volunteers who are prepared to move at their own expense.
2: If nobody volunteers, offer promotions.
3: If that doesn't work, recruit at commercial rates.

So, why volunteer?

Its like this, they'll out source all IT jobs, in other words, they'll go to contracters that will cost the taxpayer 4 times what a Civil Servant IT person would. But sure who am I to give out, I'll just end up sitting in an office with no work to do and can not be made redundant. Think I'll buy Lord Of The Rings and War And Peace to read...... :rolleyes:

davidoco

Want to know about a waste of money

The Carlow location for the Department of Enterprise Trade and Employment is going to be built under a public private arrangement where the successful bidder will design, build, finance and maintain the building – If you don’t know what this is think of the toll bridges.

If your a builder you will be falling over yourself to get a bid in for that one. Guaranteed inflated build price, basic to the core design, indexed linked guaranteed rent - happy days.

NewDubliner

This, from the 'Irish Independent, July 28, 2005.

I wonder who else was interviewed?

Minister's pensioner pal will head Civil Defence

DEFENCE Minister Willie O'Dea is nominating a political associate and constituent to be national chairman of the Civil Defence organisation.

Pensioner Joe Meagher, from Oola, Co Limerick, has been a close associate of the minister for many years. He will oversee a volunteer corps of thousands of young people from the end of next month.

His nomination is likely to re-ignite the controversy aroused by the Taoiseach's nomination of his former partner Celia Larkin to the board of a state consumer agency.

Mr Meagher is a former Fianna Fail councillor who lost his seat in the Castleconnell ward by a little over 50 votes in last year's local elections.

The former community welfare officer ended a five-year stint in the Civil Defence more than 35 years ago. His wife runs the post office in Oola.

Joe Meagher takes over at a troubled time for the Civil Defence, following the sacking of a previous chairman by then Defence Minister Michael Smith. Michael Ryan had resisted the relocation of Civil Defence headquarters from the Phoenix Park in Dublin to Roscrea in Mr Smith's constituency.

Mr Ryan was replaced as chairman by businessman Pat Cooney, who recently indicated to the minister that he would not be able to continue in the post due to work commitments.

Senan Molony
Political Correspondent

NewDubliner

From the 'Sunday Tribune', more hidden costs coming to light:

Re-training of rural civil servants set to cost millions
Sunday Tribune

THOUSANDS of rural-based civil servants who have applied to move jobs under the government's decentralisation plan will have to travel up to Dublin for about two months of training before being moved back down the country again.

In the latest bizarre twist to the government's plans to move 10,000 civil servants out of the capital, the Department of Finance has finally conceded it will have to pay a training allowance to these rural based civil servants to cover the additional expense of staying in Dublin during training.

This costly shunting of civil servants up and down to Dublin arises because, of the 9,000 civil servants who so far have said they are willing to move jobs under the government's decentralisation plan, 4,000 are already working outside the capital. Each department due to move out of Dublin has insisted that every new arrival receive on- the-job training before moving down the country. As these departments are still in Dublin, the training will have to be done there, and this will require all rural-based staff to travel to the capital to train for a job back down the country.

But in an effort to cap the cost, Finance has warned the public service unions that it will not pay the full civil service subsistence rate of € 138 per night. Based on four overnights per week and eight weeks of training, the unions' claim could reach almost €20m.

At a meeting last Thursday with the unions, Finance offered to pay an ex-gratia training allowance of €152 per week to every householder moving to Dublin for training and Eur 95 per week for a non-householder. This would cost around Eur 5m. Finance also warned each department that they must "minimise the requirement to come to Dublin and that they must seek approval from the Department of Finance for payment in each case".

A spokesman for the PSEU, which represents middle management grades in the civil service, said irrespective of whether it is necessary for civil servants to go up and down to Dublin for training, his members will incur additional living costs staying in the more expensive capital, and they should be fully reimbursed.

The PSEU rejected Finance's offer and the row is heading for adjudication.

NewDubliner

From 'Ireland on Sunday' who seem to have some inside information. It's a bit extreme to refer to some applications as 'false', some people's circumstances might have changed or the cost of moving family may be too high.

Civil service moves back to Dublin!
Ireland on Sunday
THE GOVERNMENT'S Eur900m decentralisation plan has shifted from standstill into reverse.

Civil servants willing to take up roles outside Dublin will first have to train for at least two years - in Dublin.

The original aim was to move 10,300 civil servants to 53 locations around the country. However, thousands of civil servants could be forced to move to Dublin to be trained for work in other departments.

Many of the applications for decentralisation have come from civil servants looking to move between counties that are outside Dublin. This has proven to be the bane of the ambitious decentralisation scheme.

The plan was to have seen four Government departments move from Dublin in their entirety, and six move in part, by the end of 2007. This goal now appears more elusive than ever.

In an equally ominous development, senior officials from several departments have been forced to draw up a `decentralisation commitment' form. When signed, this form would commit a civil servant to moving to a particular place by a specified deadline.

The form is aimed at combating the hundreds of false decentralisation applications received to date, informed sources have said.

In yet another twist, Ireland on Sunday has learned that a number of high-ranking officials have been assured that they will continue to be accommodated in Dublin offices, although this will not be reflected in statistics for decentralisation, while their subordinates relocate.

oscarBravo

Um... training costs? What training is required to live outside Dublin?

RicardoSmith

oscarBravo wrote:

Um... training costs? What training is required to live outside Dublin?

They have to do a course on answering stupid questions....

Say you move from Finance to IT or vice a versa, then I think you are going to need training. No? Or a clerical worker to a business unit etc. Since they are juggling people around between roles to fit the numbers.

NewDubliner

From 'SiliconRepublic http://www.siliconrepublic.com I wonder how long before the next big announcement?

Government IT spend hit by decentralisation

17.08.2005 - The pace of growth of Irish Government spending on IT in 2005 is expected to dip due to confusion caused by decentralisation, it has been claimed. An IDC spokesman said the average spending growth could halve as civil servants curtail spending due to uncertainty caused by the decentralisation strategy.
IDC Ireland sales manager Keith Gaffney told siliconrepublic.com: “We estimate the [Irish] IT market will be €2.2bn in 2005, with about 25pc of that — some €550m — spent by the Government.”

Gaffney explained every year, Irish Government IT spending increases by about 8pc. However, he warned, this is likely to slow this year in the Irish IT market to between 4pc and 5pc due to confusion over decentralisation. Effectively, he explained, Irish civil servants and IT strategists are unsure what technologies or what quantities of hardware to spend their budgets on due to uncertainty.

While the same uncertainty may have gripped IT spending in 2004, Gaffney said this was buoyed up by a surge in Government IT spending in 2004 driven by a hardware refresh made necessary to replace equipment acquired during the last major spending spree on IT equipment during the Y2K crisis in 1999. “IT equipment is required to be replaced every three to four years and it turned out to be four years. There will be less equipment acquired this year.”

Gaffney explained: “We would think the Government has grown slower this year than last year. As a result of decentralisation, nobody knows what it is doing.”

He explained that lack of knowledge as to where specific Government functions will be located is stymieing planning. “Plans for IT require functions and equipment to be in a certain location, but what location would they be required in?”

Gaffney concluded: “We estimate that Government IT spending will grow between 4pc and 5pc this year compared to 8pc last year.” The confusion surrounding future IT investment in government systems is one more headache for the Department of Finance-based Central Management and Organisation Development, which is overseeing the decentralisation strategy. Recent reports suggest as many as 80pc of Government IT workers have yet to agree to move as part of the decentralisation strategy.

By John Kennedy

NewDubliner

Form the 'Sunday Independent', Aug 21. Maybe the idea of the life coaching is to encourage staff to leave?

Taxpayer set to foot life-coaching bill for public service workers
JEROME REILLY

CIVIL servants confused about the direction of their lives are being offered their own personal life coaches at the taxpayer's expense, the Sunday Independent can reveal.

The first recipients of the new touchy feely approach in the grey world of the State sector will be the 160 staff at the Valuation Office in Dublin.

Life coaching sessions can cost between €600 and €1,000 per client suggesting the taxpayer could be left with a significant bill - even with a group discount.

It could not be established whether the service is to be expanded throughout the civil service, but if it were to be, it would add hugely to the cost.

Dismissed as a new-age fad by some, life coaching has become a multimillion global industry with so-called gurus offering to reshape the lives of those who have lost focus.

The officials at the Valuation Office are certainly facing their own life-changing move: a 180-mile decentralisation from central Dublin to Youghal in East Cork.

But the attractions of the historic walled seaport town with its fine five kilometre blue-flag beach has failed to move the civil servants.

Only a handful of the 99 targeted for the move has expressed enthusiasm for decentralisation.

The Valuation Office is an independent body but comes under the control of the Department of Finance. Its main function is to assess the rateable valuations of commercial and industrial properties throughout the Republic.

It also advises government departments on property values. According to the official Invitation to Tender Notice published on the Government website last week, the Valuation Office wishes to provide counselling/life coaching services to its approximately 160 employees on a one-to-one confidential basis.

"The service will operate independently of the Valuation Office and must provide face-to-face counselling services by qualified counsellors to meet a broad range of needs."

The Exchequer will pick up the tab for the first four life-coaching sessions each year for any civil servant in the Valuation Office who wants to avail of the service.

Although the scheme will operate for a period of one year initially there is an option to extend the counselling service for a further two years.

The move to provide officials in the Valuation Office with costly professional help on how to organise their professional and personal lives comes as the agency is about to embark on a national re-evaluation on all property in Ireland.

That's caused some trepidation among property owners in the commercial sectors who fear that they will face a huge hike in their rates.

But leading life coach Greg Dalton of Q1etc.com said that the appointment of a life coach was a welcome move by the State and would actually save money.

Mr Dalton admitted that "life coaching" had suffered in the public mind because many people involved in new-age fads and therapies have added "life coaching" to their list of services as purely a money-making exercise.

"What we are talking about at a professional level as endorsed by the Life and Business Coaching Association of Ireland is effectively just a more complete and coherent approach to career guidance," he said. "Coaching gets you from where you are to where you want to get to," he said.

" From both the employee's and employer's perspective, professional life coaching makes sound financial sense."

NewDubliner

PSEU has issued another bulletin:http://www.pseu.ie/docs/Decent40.doc

In brief, Agriculture won't let its IT staff escape, it's also trying to find work for surplus non-IT staff. PSEU has rejected as 'derisory' the expense payments being offered to non-Dubliners decentralising from one rural location to another and who must come to Dublin to learn the jobs of the Dubliners whose jobs are being taken.

More reports due in November, no doubt, more fun and games then.

KieranusTyranus

Ok I accept the majority of people in Dublin and the surrounding counties are against it. But I seriously believe that it is one of the few good ideas this government has come up with. The only problem with it is that it doesnt go far enough. The rural areas of the country ( in paticular the West Borders and Midlands) get sweet **** all infasructure and development from the government and this has to change.

A Dub in Glasgo

I have an interview on Friday for a post that is currently based in Blackrock, Dublin but is due to go to Co. Galway. To be honest, I would much prefer if the job was based in Co. Galway now because the price of a family home in Dublin (or within a reasonable commute of Blackrock) is appalling.

NewDubliner

KieranusTyranus wrote:

Ok I accept the majority of people in Dublin and the surrounding counties are against it. But I seriously believe that it is one of the few good ideas this government has come up with. The only problem with it is that it doesnt go far enough. The rural areas of the country ( in paticular the West Borders and Midlands) get sweet **** all infasructure and development from the government and this has to change.

There's already a very extensive thread on this topic and to summarise the position, dececentralisation might be a good idea (like Mom & Apple pie) but is it a good plan?

eigrod

KieranusTyranus wrote:

The rural areas of the country ( in paticular the West Borders and Midlands) get sweet **** all infasructure and development from the government and this has to change.

May be more to do with the demise of the Flynn & Reynolds dynasties within FF, so don't expect too much sympathy from the Munster & East Leinster regions.

And, using 50% of the Civil Service as an extremely expensive pawn to right what you perceive to be wrongs isn't the solution either.

oscarBravo

KieranusTyranus wrote:

The rural areas of the country ( in paticular the West Borders and Midlands) get sweet **** all infasructure and development from the government and this has to change.

Not many people (I could name some specific exceptions) would disagree. The burning question is: is the planned decentralisation an efficient and effective way to acheive that goal?

Firetrap

oscarBravo wrote:

Not many people (I could name some specific exceptions) would disagree. The burning question is: is the planned decentralisation an efficient and effective way to acheive that goal?

The problem with decentralisation is that now that once the Government said they wanted to ship 10,300 civil & public servants out of Dublin, there was no turning back. If they turned around in the morning and admitted it was a rubbish idea (which it is, make no bones about it), it would make them look like incompetent idiots. It would also piss off the deluded souls in towns like Clonakilty & Dungarvan who think that it would be wonderful to have a deluge of well paid Civil Servants (cough!) descend upon their towns and make their lives wonderful and cure their unemployment problems.

I'm not saying that long term, decentralisation wouldn't work but if they rush the thing through in the short space of time they've alotted for this folly, lots of departments are going to lose staff whose expertise will be badly missed in the new locations and could've been invaluable when training in new staff.

fly_agaric

KieranusTyranus wrote:

But I seriously believe that it is one of the few good ideas this government has come up with.

Yes, it is a good vote-purchasing idea. It will make plenty of money for FF's builder, big farmer, developer and businessman friends.

KieranusTyranus wrote:

The only problem with it is that it doesnt go far enough.

Yeah. They should have decapitalised Dublin. The dail stinks up the place something terrible.

Even better - they could have copied Pol-Pot and trucked all the jackeens out of Dublin to do subsistence farming and seaweed harvesting on the western seaboard.

ishmael whale

KieranusTyranus wrote:

The rural areas of the country ( in paticular the West Borders and Midlands) get sweet **** all infasructure and development from the government and this has to change.

A common misconception. When you consider, for example, that every Western seaboard county, bar Limerick, has its own airport it becomes clear that considerable amounts of public funds are invested in the West. The block to regional development, as per the national spatial strategy analysis, has more to do with the lack of concentration in the regions - i.e. every small town expecting to get some largesse, leading to nothing useful being achieved.

The West gets an amount of admiration from other regions for its ability to get resources out of the public purse. If the West put as much effort into ensuring those resources actually achieved something, the country would be all the richer. But I suppose if you're spending someone else's money its probably hard to see a need to get results.

The Government decentralisation programme is a particulary wasteful scheme. We have an open economy so the idea that moving a civil service payroll into a town brings any significant benefit is simply mistaken. Decentralisation, as proposed, is like lighting your cigarette with a bundle of banknotes. The lack of any benefit from domestic demand expansion is elementary economics, as this extract from an indo leaving cert exam brief illustrates.

http://www.unison.ie/features/education/exambrief/pdfs/leaving/economics_o&h3.pdf
…Aggregate demand increases – however a huge percentage of this extra spending power leaks abroad in the form of higher demand for imports. This is because Ireland has a high marginal propensity to import. …

oscarBravo

ishmael whale wrote:

The West gets an amount of admiration from other regions for its ability to get resources out of the public purse. If the West put as much effort into ensuring those resources actually achieved something, the country would be all the richer. But I suppose if you're spending someone else's money its probably hard to see a need to get results.

I've been trying for a long time to figure out why you feel that nothing is being achieved by investment in the regions. I think I've got it: it's not that nothing is being achieved; merely that whatever it is you feel should be achieved hasn't been.

I'm also not entirely sure what it is that you feel should be achieved. I get the impression that your concept of achievement can be measured with spreadsheets on a macroeconomic scale, rather than by any subjective measure of quality of life by the people who actually have to live those lives. In fact, I seem to remember you pouring scorn on me once for using the phrase "real people", as if such pedestrian concepts as individuals' experiences are too trivial to factor into your economic calculations.

ishmael whale wrote:

The Government decentralisation programme is a particulary wasteful scheme.

On that, we agree.

ishmael whale

oscarBravo wrote:

I've been trying for a long time to figure out why you feel that nothing is being achieved by investment in the regions. I think I've got it: it's not that nothing is being achieved; merely that whatever it is you feel should be achieved hasn't been.

Just to set the general scene, the person starting this thread seems to share that very common misconception that the West does not get a reasonable share of national resources. I’m taking it, implicitly, that you don’t share this opinion as you seem to be concentrating on measurement of the benefits that expenditure brings. I’m honestly not trying to twist or put words in your mouth, and do correct me if I’m wrong on this.

I totally accept that people can have differing perceptions of what constitutes acceptable returns. It may very well be that your moral/social viewpoint deems the returns that are currently obtained to be sufficient to provide justification for the rest of the nation to continue funding them.

However, many western development campaigners complain that the West is not attracting enough jobs and prosperity. My point is really aimed at those people. If you accept that a natural consequence of living in a rural area or small town is that, even with a considerable transfer of state resources, material standards of living and access to specialised services will be less than living in a large city, then our views are probably not irreconcilable.

But be clear that we’re not simply talking about my perception of the value obtained from the resources invested in the West. It’s the perception of many of your neighbours. They seem to feel that they should be seeing more benefits that would fit onto a spreadsheet, and seem not to recognise the considerable resources already being invested in their region.

oscarBravo

ishmael whale wrote:

Just to set the general scene, the person starting this thread seems to share that very common misconception that the West does not get a reasonable share of national resources. I’m taking it, implicitly, that you don’t share this opinion as you seem to be concentrating on measurement of the benefits that expenditure brings. I’m honestly not trying to twist or put words in your mouth, and do correct me if I’m wrong on this.

I accept that the West is the recipient of national resources, yes. Whether it's a "reasonable share" or not is up for discussion. I also accept that the benefit, whether on a personal or national level, of that investment may not be all it could be.

ishmael whale wrote:

I totally accept that people can have differing perceptions of what constitutes acceptable returns. It may very well be that your moral/social viewpoint deems the returns that are currently obtained to be sufficient to provide justification for the rest of the nation to continue funding them.

Once again, it necessarily depends how you measure return on investment. If your yardstick is exclusively fiscal, and exclusively national in scope, investment in the west may seem like a bad deal. If, instead, you measure the local, social consequences of refusing to invest in the regions, you may come to a different conclusion.

I live in the west. More than that, I live in Mayo. Better yet, I live in a rural area outside Ballina. Maybe the country as a whole would get better value if resources were diverted from here to Cork, but that's cold comfort to me and hundreds of thousands like me.

ishmael whale wrote:

However, many western development campaigners complain that the West is not attracting enough jobs and prosperity. My point is really aimed at those people. If you accept that a natural consequence of living in a rural area or small town is that, even with a considerable transfer of state resources, material standards of living and access to specialised services will be less than living in a large city, then our views are probably not irreconcilable.

I accept that rural life is a tradeoff. I don't expect to be able to get a tram to the National Concert Hall, and I don't think city dwellers should expect a half-acre lawn.

I do expect to be able to access emergency medical services as required, for example. I don't believe every village should have an acute hospital, but I don't think a decent air ambulance service should be too much to ask.

I accept that the provision of some services is more expensive in rural areas, but then others are not: treating my sewage isn't costing the state a cent, for example.

ishmael whale wrote:

But be clear that we’re not simply talking about my perception of the value obtained from the resources invested in the West. It’s the perception of many of your neighbours. They seem to feel that they should be seeing more benefits that would fit onto a spreadsheet, and seem not to recognise the considerable resources already being invested in their region.

I don't agree with all of my neighbours. I agree with many of them that the regions could be better served, but I think we need to invest more imagination more so than more money to achieve it.

KieranusTyranus

If you think the west is getting so much investment then why arent you rushing across the shannon to live here?