Decentralisation

NewDubliner

gbh wrote:

The economic benefits to the country/taxpayer may in fact be immeasureable.

Agreed, there may be no benefit at all.

You persistantly ignore the question of cost. Are you supporting a project that has an unknown cost (upwards of 2bn euro) and which produces 'immeasurable' benefits?

ie, the saving to the environment from people stuck all day in traffic jams.

The liklihood is that traffic and congestion will increase as a result of the project. Have you evidence on this subject?

Can you put an actual cost on that?

You're the economist, you're the one supporting the project. The onus of proof is on you.

What if on average they own houses that are worth 500,000 in Dublin city and they sold those houses and bought an equivalent or even bigger house down the country for perhaps 350,000

What if, they like living in Dublin and want to remain near their extended families?

I think the question should be asked in a sort of cost/benefit analysis way

I agree, may we see you figures?

Well here is one possible answer. Anytime someone down the country wants to meet an official from the department of justice, agriculture, environment.....

Only one answer? Have you considered the loss of institutional memory and expensively trained speciialsts? Not only would this lead to a degradation in service but it adds to costs (see above).

I am a taxpayer as well. And I think it would be of great benefit in a number of ways to have for example just one bank in my local town where I and the rest of the population could do our business. There isnt one sadly, and the nearest one is six miles away. But its not just banks, its things like the High Court and Supreme court. Its things like an international airport that provides a link to most countries in the world, therefore making the area attractive for investment. Or a good hospital that can cope with car crash victims without having to transport them to Dublin. Little things like which are taken for granted in dublin. And the fact is where ever populations centralise, so to do banks and the like. So would be better to disperse populations evenly.

The project currently known as 'Decentralisation' will not provide any of these.

TempestSabre

Are you going to ignore the fact that the numbers of people being decentralised are tiny compared to the number of immigrants now settling around the country?

Also if you have the support of family and friends for things like creche, childcare, sick family members, relations, visiting people in care, nursing homes, and the ability to manage such because everyone is near you in Dublin, all that support and closesness is gone if you are removed from your extended family and in fact living down the country would actually be more expensive as you'll have to pay for strangers to do this for you, and you have to commute up and down to see your extended family. Not to mention that your partner or spouse will probably have to take a drop in wages to move out of Dublin. These extra costs, drops in wages into the household, and extra travelling mean that you would be worse off out of Dublin.

The other point is that the opportunity to move down the country has always been available to the people (10,000) being forced to decentralise. If they had wanted, or were able to do so they would have done already. The majority (5,000 or so) of the people who've signed up to decentralise are already decentralised out of Dublin. So they've already made the the choice.

Anyone in our office who has left has usually been been hired back as a contractor or been replaced by a contractor. Which results in the same or worse service for much higher costs. or indeed the work itself has been outsourced to the private sector.

NewDubliner

From the 'Irish Times', June 12th 2006, DOF is still in denial mode.

Just 20% of specialists willing to decentralise
Irish Times : Liam Reid, Political Reporter

Just 20 per cent of 1,700 specialists whose jobs have been earmarked for decentralisation have indicated they are willing to move, according to new figures from Government departments and State agencies.The figures suggest that the vast majority of civil servants in highly-specialised or skilled positions, including legal, financial, IT and scientific areas, are unwilling to move when their positions are decentralised.

The details, which were collated by Fine Gael from more than 60 separate parliamentary questions in the past two weeks, also suggest that a high number of decentralising posts are being filled by people on promotion or through recruitment.It has also transpired that just 200 civil servants out of a potential 6,000 whose jobs are decentralising but who are remaining in Dublin have been reassigned to positions that are remaining in the capital.

Yesterday Fine Gael's finance spokesman Richard Bruton said the revelations in the figures raised fundamental questions about the Government's decentralisation plan, and belied claims by the Government that it was proceeding smoothly.He said it suggested the programme was facing serious problems, with the potential of huge additional expense in hiring or training additional specialist staff. This was combined with a lack of positions for some 6,000 civil servants who were not decentralising from the capital.

The figures collected by Mr Bruton cover three-quarters of the decentralisation posts as some Government departments and agencies were unable to provided detailed figures on the status of their plans.The figures show that in some departments, such as the Department of Social and Family Affairs, none of its 22 specialist staff are willing to decentralise.

The Department of Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs has been forced to recruit an additional two specialists in a bid to address its problem.

In the Office of Public Works less than 5 per cent of its 163 specialist staff with expertise in areas such as property management and architecture have signed up for the move to Trim."On the face of it this means that the Government will have to find new people to fill almost 85 per cent of the specialist positions," Mr Bruton said. "It represents a frightening prospect of the melt down of core skills within the public service."

However, a spokesman for the Department of Finance, which is overseeing the decentralisation programme, said the figures could not be taken literally.

He said there was a process in place through the Labour Relations Commission to address any key issues, and that the department was confident that this would begin to address solutions to problems identified in the decentralisation programme.

"We have always said that this process was going to take time to finalise," he said, adding that most of the first wave of decentralising departments would not be moving for a further two to three years.

TempestSabre

...He said there was a process in place through the Labour Relations Commission to address any key issues, and that the department was confident that this would begin to address solutions to problems identified in the decentralisation programme....

What process is he talking about?

NewDubliner

TempestSabre wrote:

What process is he talking about?

Do you mean :

He said there was a process in place through the Labour Relations Commission to address any key issues, and that the department was confident that this would begin to address solutions to problems identified in the decentralisation programme.

Oh, that's just standard press-office waffle. Meaningless once you read it more than once.

TempestSabre

Theres isn't a process in place AFAIK.

NewDubliner

TempestSabre wrote:

Theres isn't a process in place AFAIK.

There may or may not be, depending on what is meant by 'process'. It's just more smoke used to confuse the public & gullible journalists.

I think the whole project has been a wake up call for anyone who was accustomed to accepting as fact anything that came out of a department press-office or that a minister might announce.

eigrod

TempestSabre wrote:

Theres isn't a process in place AFAIK.

The only process on the Civil Service side is that the DOF officials & Union officials meet for nice tea & biscuits once every six weeks or so, sit around a table, discuss a few of the softer issues and then decide to meet again in another six weeks. The minutes from those meetings are comical for their lack of hard decisions and action points.

Whatever happened to the Decentralisation Implementation Group ? Last report was July '04, then Phil Flynn was kicked off it and nothing's happened since.

We are now 2 years and 7 months into a process that was to be completed in 3 years, yet there hasn't been one significant transfer of staff as yet, and as the above Irish Times article states, there isn't likely to be one for another 2-3 years. This simple basic fact alone shows how ill thought out this pipe dream was.

Hotblack Desiato

gbh wrote:

the saving to the environment from people stuck all day in traffic jams.

Question 1: what will happen to the vacated Dublin offices? Will there be more commuters going to them in future, less, or about the same?

Question 2: What about those Dublin dwellers urged to 'reverse commute' by McCreevy and Parlon? How does turning an average commute of 5 miles or less into a 50+ one benefit anyone? How does driving out from Dublin to work, buying your lunchtime sambo in a midlands town then driving back home to Dublin benefit rural development?

Secondly, there are higher civil servants opposed to this.

Believe me, it's not just the higher ones, but members of the middle-grade unions are stymied because there is a very vocal rural caucus who drown out all attempts at reasonable debate on the issue.

What if on average they own houses that are worth 500,000 in Dublin city and they sold those houses and bought an equivalent or even bigger house down the country

It's not about Size, Size, Size it's about Location, Location, Location.

for perhaps 350,000 which is about normal for a large house in the regions. The civil servant can then take the 150,000 profit and put it in his or hers pension fund.

Except civil servants don't have (and as PAYE workers, aren't allowed have) pension funds. And most of them have spouses who are working. Are they to give up work, or take a lower paid job? Isn't that likely to cancel out any reduced living costs?

The same goes whether the person is married and has a family. It is well known that the cost of living is much cheaper down the country than in Dublin, for creches, nursing homes etc.

There's more to life than money. Those who are motivated by money would be well advised to steer clear of a civil service career in any case.

Thirdly, I think the question should be asked in a sort of cost/benefit analysis way

Funnily enough, so do we. Let's start with the costs.

would dispersing the civil service really damage their viability and ability to do a good, effective job on behalf of the state and the taxpayer.

Yes. Absolutely. A few years ago I was working on a project involving a decentralised office in Limerick. There were numerous trips up and down for meetings etc. On two occasions about a month apart I had to travel down to Limerick, install specialised software on half a dozen PCs, then return. A whole day wasted in order to do one hour's work (never mind travel costs etc.) That's just one example. I reckon the senior managers of decentralised offices spend at least half of their time travelling. In Dublin they would be far more productive.

My principal argument in favour of decentralisation is not so much that people would be closer down the country to the head office although that is one advantage

So you propose to bring services closer to the people by moving them away from our largest population centre?
Most services the public deal with (Revenue, DSFA, etc.) are already well geographically dispersed.

but more the benefit economically to regions that traditionally have suffered from economic disadvantage

Breakfast roll economics again. First you have to demonstrate that there actually is a benefit, then set out the costs as accurately as you can, then we can make an informed decision on whether this plan has any merit.

and low take up of local services such as post offices and bank branches, forcing these outlets to close

If there were 5 decentralisation centres, not 53, you could make a good argument along these lines. The 'something for everyone in the audience' nature of this plan dilutes to the point of homeopathy any possible benefit.

I am a taxpayer as well.

Then you should be very concerned about this plan and how it will cost a billion or two to deliver worse quality services.

Its things like an international airport that provides a link to most countries in the world

Realistically, Ireland is too small to sustain more than one, and given the paucity of long-haul destinations on offer even Dublin airport doesn't meet your criterion. It's a feeder airport for Heathrow as much as anything else.

Or a good hospital that can cope with car crash victims without having to transport them to Dublin.

So why not spend the money on health services directly, instead of on decentralisation? If you haven't been watching the news for the last year or so, Dublin has the worst A+E services in the country. But I'll be generous and say, yes, let's spend the money on country hospitals, it would be a far better use of the money than decentralisation.

So would be better to disperse populations evenly.

This goes against the patterns of thousands of years of human settlement. The larger a settlement is, the quicker it grows. What this country really needs is a handful of growth centres. The National Spatial Strategy was far too watered down to be effective, for political reasons. Decentralisation is even worse. Like the WRC, rural voters are being sold a very expensive pup for which they (and everyone else) will be paying for decades to come.

Dinarius

eigrod wrote:

We are now 2 years and 7 months into a process that was to be completed in 3 years, yet there hasn't been one significant transfer of staff as yet, and as the above Irish Times article states, there isn't likely to be one for another 2-3 years. This simple basic fact alone shows how ill thought out this pipe dream was.

Not true, if my sources are correct. The transfer of Marine to Clonakilty, as I have written previously, will be well underway by the end of the summer.

If I'm wrong, you can say, "Told you so!"

D.

gbh

Look...please don't quote this sentence ok...but I can't be responding individually and taking quotes individually from each person who responds to me. Because I think on this thread there's about a ratio of five to one against/in favour of decentralisation. It's clear that this thread which I know is open to the general public and not just civil servants has been hijacked by a very tiny minority of the general population as a platform to oppose at all costs decentralisation and attempt to kill the process. And there is an attempt to demonise any member of the general public who is in favour of decentralisation. Now I don't know if this is how our public sector unions work normally but if it is, then it is time they woke up and smelt the coffee. Its like the partnership talks, the unions represent a small minority of the population yet practically run the country. And when the democratically elected will of the people, ie the government come up with a rational plan to solve the extremely serious issue of regional imbalance, once again a vocal minority try to demonise all those who oppose their plans.
Yes I agree decentralisation involves sacrifices. And also I think immigrants should be sent down the country as well. But you ignore the point that most immigrants work in the services industry, ie servicing the needs of Irish people. So the more Irish people outside the capital there are, the more immigrants outside the capital there will be. As for the sacrifices, yes they may be felt in the short term, but people will get used to it eventually.

And I repeat, don't bother quoting me. Argue constructively rather than destructively in future.

TempestSabre

I think they should create a Sin City/Las Vegas style city somewhere in the midlands. A huge international airport beside it, and perhaps a harbour for cruise ships with a canal to the sea. Sure it will be expensive, and perhaps even lose a billion or too, but look at all the jobs its will create, for a while at least. And the votes...the lovely votes....

fly_agaric

Sorry to quote;), but

gbh wrote:

Argue constructively rather than destructively in future.

Arguing against something requires one to argue destructively.
Are you asking people to craft arguments in support of this scheme for you?

Also, there is no point in trying to argue that this scheme will do anything to alleviate any problems in Dublin.

The numbers of people involved are a drop in the ocean really and the dispersed nature of the scheme means it won't do anything whatsoever for the emegence of another region to rival Dublin/Leinster in economic/population terms that could act to slow the growth of Dublin + surroundings and reduce the pressure on everything there.

How many such regions do you think a small island of 4-5 million can have anyway? Would it be as many as 50 or so?:)

Lets be realistic - it is just 2, or at most 3 IMO.

BTW FYI, I myself am not a civil servant but I do have family in the civil service.

SuperMacs

As a taxpayers...if decentralisation is cheaper in the "Long-term".
I am all for it.
The argument boils down to economics, and is it cheaper.
I will admit I do not know the real answer to that.

About Civil servents getting removed from friends and family, and having to commute.
I do not care.
I had to move myself and family away from family and friends.
Because I had to follow the work.
If I did not move...no work. Simple really.

There is no way I could move to Dublin. I would not be able to afford the rent or house prices there.
And I feel hard done by if my tax Euros is subsidising people to live in Dublin.

ishmael whale

SuperMacs wrote:

As a taxpayers...if decentralisation is cheaper in the "Long-term". I am all for it. The argument boils down to economics, and is it cheaper. I will admit I do not know the real answer to that..

You are absolutely correct. However, no economic assessement has been made, as the purpose of the scheme is not to save money.

SuperMacs wrote:

And I feel hard done by if my tax Euros is subsidising people to live in Dublin.

You can rest easy. That simply does not happen. Dublin subsidises the regions, not the other way around.

Dublin and Mid East Region households (Kildare, Meath, Wicklow) make a combined net contribution of €2,151 million (taxes paid less State transfers received.) If you need a source for this, look at Table 6 on page 13 of this report.

gbh

From our perspective, it looks like you’ve nailed you colours to the mast and decided you must support decentralisation come what may. None of the points you’ve made in support of the programme hold water. Yet rather than see a need to change your perspective, you’re simply generally complaining that no-one else is supporting the programme.

The programme does not really address the concerns you seem to have about regional development. It does nothing to reduce congestion in the East, and far more would be achieved if the same money was put into public transport. It just has that lovely frisson of ripping things out of Dublin. The scheme is designed to play people for fools, and appeal to their worst instincts while fundamentally achieving nothing.

How long will it take before you see that you have a massive misconception of this scheme, and need to change your mind?

TempestSabre

SuperMacs wrote:

As a taxpayers...if decentralisation is cheaper in the ...
There is no way I could move to Dublin. I would not be able to afford the rent or house prices there.
And I feel hard done by if my tax Euros is subsidising people to live in Dublin.

Do you think moving Dublin People to where you live will make things cheaper for you? I suspect it won't.

The_Conductor

GBH-

First of all, the unions (with the exception of the AHCS and SIPTU) are almost unamoniously in favour of decentralisation. The PSEU who represent lower level management grades in the civil service petitioned the government to implement a further decentralisation scheme (the 7th since 1978) back in 2000. What is being missed here is the fact that the civil service is not largely based in Dublin at all. Of the 35,000 civil servants, over 21,000 are located outside Dublin/Kildare/Wicklow. The reason the unions are so much in favour of decentralisation- is because they are representing the voices of the majority of their members who see that it will favour them from a promotional and locational prospective.

This is one of the reasons that some of the locations who were initially big proponents of decentralisation (such as Longford town, Ballinasloe etc) have suddenly discovered that decentralisation for them can mean a net transfer of jobs elsewhere (and in the case of Longford a total blackening of their name in the national press which reported it as a mafia style crime capital of Ireland). Longford is loosing over 200 jobs to Carrick-on-Shannon.

Re: the will of the people- You will no doubt be familiar with the "Welcome to Parlon Country" posters that plastered Laois/Offally at the last local elections. The Progressive Democrats ran 16 candidates in constituencies there on the strength of decentralisation. Guess how many got in? None. That is the will of the local electorate.

SuperMac- re: housing, Property Partners attribute a 20% rise in property prices in Portlaoise almost entirely to decentralisation. When you factor in stamp duty and moving costs in the equation, it is simply not the case that large numbers of civil servants will have change over from selling properties in Dublin. On the contrary- the vast majority of civil servants who have applied to be decentralised (including a majority of those already based outside of Dublin) do not intend to move house at all- they simply intend to commute to a different location. My job is going to Portlaoise- I can drive there in under an hour every morning and ditto in the evening- saving time on a commute into Dublin city centre. This is not to say I am in favour of making a 160 mile round trip, its more an inditement of public transport in this country of ours.

Re: your tax subsidising Dublin- as pointed out Dublin transfers a net 2 billion annually to the regions so that simply is not the case.

GBH- re queuing for banking/postoffices/services in Dublin- to be 100% honest queues in Galway are far worse than any I have encountered in a long time in Dublin. The banks are closing branches left right and centre in an effort to reduce costs- hence AIB offering their services through the post offices. The postoffices meanwhile are so inefficient and with their new banking services- ineffectual, that people are moving more and more to private couriers (who are cheaper in a lot of cases). Certainly services leave a lot to be desired- either through non-provision in smaller locations or through mis-provision in the larger locations. 4000 additional people scattered over 53 locations will probably not justify a single extra bank branch (civil servants are paid by EFT not by cheque or cash).

TempestSabre- surely thats Athlone you're describing?

Re: this thread being hijacked by a very tiny minority of the general population as a platform to oppose decentralisation.....

Well- what if these people are the people most in the know about the actual consequences of the proposals. What if these people are not represented by Unions or indeed any official body and are simply using this thread as a place to discuss matters and inform each other of developments (mostly through media leaks). I don't recall most of the people here stating they were fundamentally opposed to decentralisation- indeed the civil service has been very welcoming of decentralisation which is how over 60% of civil servants are already decentralised. Most of the people here are asking reasonable questions about the justifications for the current proposals and the implications of the proposals (cost being just one of the issues).

Everyone everywhere wants all the benefits of modern life- however few people are willing to acknowledge that there is a cost associated with those benefits. I hate paying bin charges- yet I am against incineration (which is a clean technology (far cleaner than landfill)) which would drastically reduce my bin costs. I want better mobile phone reception- yet I oppose putting up another Mast. I want longer pub opening hours- yet I abhore the carnage on our roads. I want better education for my children with more accountability from teachers- yet I look enviously at their wonderful holidays. I want decent food from clean certified farms- yet I'm not willing to pay a premium for it.

Life is a series of contradictions. The public have to accept that there is a cost associated with decentralisation that they might not like. It was all well and good for the regions to gang up on the Jackeens from Dublin- until some of them (like Longford) discovered the grass is not always greener on the other side of the fence.

Having a discourse about hard facts and trying to educate ourselves about the issues is not a witchhunt or an attempt to undermine anything whatsoever. This is a forum where things are discussed. We are discussing.

The biggest problem and the one that we are largely trying to debate here- is hard facts. The public have been sold a pup and yet there appears to be a reticence to openly debate hard facts. That is all we are trying to- debate hard facts.

gbh

When it comes to politics I am the sort that is in favour of:

Compromise, re-dressing societal and regional imbalance, progressive moves which help the marginalised.

Now are you seriously going to argue that someone in the far reaches of Donegal, Mayo, Kerry, or the BMW region is not marginalised? Where is the nearest University to these people. And why should there be Three University's within a ten mile area in Dublin? Just an example of the imbalance in this country which is really incomparible with any other country in the world. If this was going on in say Australia where the Aboriginies were marginalised or in Israel where Muslims were discriminated against we'd be up in arms because it is easier to be critical about someone a few thousand miles away and who we might never meet. But imagine yourself as someone who is learning about Ireland for the first time. You might ask, why do someone poeple have to wait an hour for an ambulannce if they have a heart attack? Because there is not enough poeple to make a service sustainable. Or you might ask why do people in Donegal have to travel long distances to a university. There is unquestionable regional imbalance. Now I am not saying that decentralisation will cure it over night, but its an important start and represents an effort by politicians of all parites and not just the government parties to redress the effects of regional imbalance.

Now the reason why some Dubliners oppose decentralisation is the same reason I and people down the country argue in favour of it, ie, proximity to decision making and policy formation. Should dublin people alone benefit from such proximity? I don't think they should.


re- economic benefits - Remember, most Dublin people can live with their parents when going to college and even when working, but people down the country who head to the capital for jobs must pay vast amounts of rent to landlords who own every second house.

re-subsidising the regions - You are totally forgetting that perhaps 50% of Dublin workers are from outside the capital. Are you saying now that some of their wages shouldn't go towards paying for the infrastructure that they benefitted from when they were younger? Also, if there were more people down the country there would be no such subsidisation. Again its an inequity caused by regional imbalance.

TempestSabre

So your argument is spend a billion or moving a tiny fraction of the population to random locations around the country in the hope that services and infrastructure will follow.

As opposed to spending the billion building the services and infrastructure in a planned process to attract population and business'es out of Dublin.

Basically instead of offering a carrot, force the donkey to your will instead.

gbh

Look, I've said my piece and you know where I stand. Just in case people get the idea from reading this thread that there is a great groundswell of opinion which thinks decentralisation should be abandoned, I'm saying it shouldn't, that there are opponents to it, as there are opponents to the best of ideas, but there are a lot of people, indeed a majority who are in favour of it.

And no I am not running away from the debate because I have run out of arguments, or that all my points have been refuted and I am retreating or becuase I don't know what I am talking about even though I do. I'm doing so because I am too busy at work to keep replying. Simple as that.

eigrod

gbh wrote:

Look, I've said my piece and you know where I stand. Just in case people get the idea from reading this thread that there is a great groundswell of opinion which thinks decentralisation should be abandoned, I'm saying it shouldn't, that there are opponents to it, as there are opponents to the best of ideas, but there are a lot of people, indeed a majority who are in favour of it.

And no I am not running away from the debate because I have run out of arguments, or that all my points have been refuted and I am retreating or becuase I don't know what I am talking about even though I do. I'm doing so because I am too busy at work to keep replying. Simple as that.

You really aren't grasping it, are you ? For the umpteenth time, practically everybody in the country is in favour of decentralisation [ including Civil Servants ! ]. Decentralisation has worked very well in the past with only relatively minor difficulties, eg Collector General's office (Revenue) to Limerick & Nenagh & CSO to Cork because these were carried out in a manageable way for all parties.

However, when faceless people, behind closed doors, suddenly announce a piecemeal "project" like this :
- no cost benefit analysis,
- no project plan,
- on a massive scale that is already running out of control (i.e. originally 3 year plan, now likely to be 10 to 15 years at least),
- no negotiations with management or staff
- no logic behind the locations chosen (i.e. ignoring this Government's own Spacial strategy)

Do you think your Managing Director would implement a project, any project, without having a fundamental Project Plan in place ?

The Government wanted to give each constituency a present of a Government Department/Office arriving on their doorstep - simple as that. On that basis, "Decentralisation" as announced in the McCreevy budget in Dec 2003 was always going to be looked on sceptically, especially by those who were going to be affected directly by this.

ishmael whale

gbh wrote:

And no I am not running away from the debate because I have run out of arguments, or that all my points have been refuted and I am retreating or becuase I don't know what I am talking about even though I do. I'm doing so because I am too busy at work to keep replying. Simple as that.

I'm sorry, but this statement just isn't credible to me. You’re just not making a case for this decentralisation programme. The reason is because there is no case to be made.

Moving the headquarters of the Prisons Service to Longford or the Ordnance Survey to Dungarvan does absolutely nothing to improve third level access in Donegal or, for that matter, third level access in Longford or Waterford. It’s just an irrelevance, and you seem to be on the verge of seeing that.

Considerable efforts are made to address regional imbalances, to the extent that it’s really the East that has an infrastructure deficit. For example, each of the counties you mention above has both an airport and a third level campus. In general, Western counties are educationally advantaged compared to the East. Broadband access is still an issue – but the proposed decentralisation programme does nothing to address that, either.

The real problem is population distribution in the West is too dispersed to support development. Unless there’s a willingness by people within the region to address that, any policy will be ineffectual.

You are totally forgetting that perhaps 50% of Dublin workers are from outside the capital. Are you saying now that some of their wages shouldn't go towards paying for the infrastructure that they benefitted from when they were younger?

Well I hadn’t really thought about it, but maybe we should give the Polish Government a kickback. The regions already get a fair shake.

SuperMacs

TempestSabre wrote:

Do you think moving Dublin People to where you live will make things cheaper for you? I suspect it won't.

OK...don't move them.
Get rid of them and hire cheaper staff in the west.

ishmael whale

SuperMacs wrote:

OK...don't move them. Get rid of them and hire cheaper staff in the west.

This is not the plan either. Can we deal with what is actually proposed, as the only people expressing support for the programme seem to be people misinformed about what it is.

jd

gbh wrote:

the government come up with a rational plan to solve the extremely serious issue of regional imbalance, once again a vocal minority try to demonise all those who oppose their plans.

It is not a rational plan (BTW I don't work in the public service)

The most rational plan was probably thge Buchanan report, which was jettisoned because of Parish Pump politics.
The Spatial Strategy is too diluted, but even that has been forgotten about and now we have 53 centres where civil/public servants may be decentralised. This is nuts, and a waste of tax payers money. Only in Ireland...

TempestSabre

SuperMacs wrote:

OK...don't move them.
Get rid of them and hire cheaper staff in the west.

So attract new staff out of Dublin and to the country by offering them less money??? Or do you mean attract people already working the private sector in the country (because we've full employment) to the Public Sector by offering them less money?

I'm sure lots of people would love to get redundancy to leave the Public Sector.

TempestSabre

Most people don't object to decentralisation. Just having their careers and family life torn apart for the sake of a few cheap votes, and public money being thrown away.

Aidan1

come up with a rational plan to solve the extremely serious issue of regional imbalance,

Well spotted JD, thats the critical point. The rationality (and lack thereof)has been discussed, the fact that this will do practically nothing to deal with regional imbalance (which is not 'an extremely serious issue' in and of itself*) has not. Moving 5000 Civil Servants around a country of 4.3million people will do sweet feck all to address regional imbalance, particularly when at least half of those people will merely commute to their new jobs. And no one has answered the questions of (a) what will happen to the 5000 Civil Servants left in Dublin with nothing to do, and (b) who is going to fill the 5000 vacancies left in 'the regions' as these people move to newly decentralised posts**.

The costs to the state in terms of lost capacity, stranded investment and opportunity cost is already huge, and it is going to become critical in some areas in the very short term.

*The only really serious issue here is the low output and poor economic performance of much of the state, as 22 counties are supported by 4. Access to facilities has already been dealt with by Ishmael in detail, but on a generic level, suggesting that inequality has a spatial perspective runs entirely contrary to previous studies in the area (NESC 1997 or Boyle, McCarthy and Walsh, 1999). Moreover, that last paper backs up Ishmael's claim that the problem with under development in the West lies in low density - with most of the productivity (and population) increases in the 1990s occurring in those regions with a large city.

**Yes, I know that many of these people are/were surplus D/Ag staff.

Edit: To add link ...

http://www.ssisi.ie/journals/98-99/regional_income_diff.pdf

gbh

Well compared with the laughable suggestions put forward here and elsewhere for redressing regional imbalance, it is a rational plan. One of these ideas is the 'If you build it, they will come' idea, another airy fairy suggestion which goes along the lines of, if you build the infrastructure/baseball park, the people will turn up. Makes me laugh out loud when people talk like that. Who will come? And will they come if there are no jobs? Absolutely not.
People always move to where there is work, simple as that. And you can't get people down the country without moving their jobs down the country. And if you dont want to move then change jobs.

As for the billion euro figure, this is a myth which opponents keep re-cycling without asking if its true. I'd like one person to do the sums and show where that billion comes from. Its a crazy figure designed to scare people into not supporting it.

And regional imbalance is a serious issue. But I presume you are a Dub who wouldn't know regional imbalance if it tapped you on the shoulder and said hello, I am...

gbh

Aidan1 wrote:

Moreover, that last paper backs up Ishmael's claim that the problem with under development in the West lies in low density - with most of the productivity (and population) increases in the 1990s occurring in those regions with a large city.

To be honest, you don't know what you are talking about. You contradicted your entire argument by saying the 'problem with under development in the West lies in low density'. That's what I have been arguing. So either you are in favour of the same thing I am in favour of, ie. increasing population density in the West or not? Which is it.. a simple yes or no would be perfectly ok. doubt if you'll answer yes or no. Are you in favour of reversing migration to cities? yes/no?

fly_agaric

gbh wrote:

Now are you seriously going to argue that someone in the far reaches of Donegal, Mayo, Kerry, or the BMW region is not marginalised? Where is the nearest University to these people. And why should there be Three University's within a ten mile area in Dublin? Just an example of the imbalance in this country which is really incomparible with any other country in the world.

Er...How is our situation so unique?

The imbalance here is quite large in that Dublin has > 1/4 of the population in it but all countries have rural and less developed areas with pretty poor services and amenities and they have cities/regions with high population densities and lots of services/amenities. Especially so if you look outside the "developed" world.

Even if development was better spread out in Ireland it still won't be possible to have all the amenities of a large city at an equal distance from every citizen - unless the whole island is concreted over into a giant mega-city with a uniformly high population density or something.

If Cork, Limerick, and Galway grow to be cities of 1 million or so in future, people in the back-end of Donegal, Mayo, and Kerry are still not going to have the same amenities available at as close proximity to them as people living in any of the large cities on the island.

gbh wrote:

If this was going on in say Australia where the Aboriginies were marginalised or in Israel where Muslims were discriminated against we'd be up in arms because it is easier to be critical about someone a few thousand miles away and who we might never meet. But imagine yourself as someone who is learning about Ireland for the first time. You might ask, why do someone poeple have to wait an hour for an ambulannce if they have a heart attack? Because there is not enough poeple to make a service sustainable. Or you might ask why do people in Donegal have to travel long distances to a university. There is unquestionable regional imbalance.

I understand what you are getting at, you have a point there somewhere [even if the health service provided to Dublin's citizens may not be quite as relatively wonderful as you seem to believe, and parts of Dublin a short busride from the corridors of power and all those august institutes of higher learning actually have among the lowest rates of university attendance in this country], but I can't believe you just compared the "plight" of people living in Donegal and Mayo to that of Israeli arabs and Aboriginees who either are or were being actively discriminated against as govt. policy because of who they are.

I have to say I find that somewhat offensive and disgusting tbh.

gbh wrote:

Now the reason why some Dubliners oppose decentralisation is the same reason I and people down the country argue in favour of it, ie, proximity to decision making and policy formation. Should dublin people alone benefit from such proximity? I don't think they should.

The most logical reason to oppose this scheme is because it is a bad idea for reasons outlined on this thread that go beyond a desire to hoard civil service departments in Dublin, Dublin selfishly trying to keep its importance at the expense of the needs of the rest of the country etc etc etc.

Personally, I don't actually care about the physical proximity of civil service departments to where I live so long as they do their jobs efficiently, they are easily contactable by phone, by post - god curse those creeping Americanisms, or on the internet, and if I do have to deal with them face to face for some unlikely thing or other there is a reasonably local office I can go to (which obviously doesn't have to be the headquarters/main office - it just needs to be capable of dealing with members of the public).

gbh wrote:

Well compared with the laughable suggestions put forward here and elsewhere for redressing regional imbalance, it is a rational plan.

What was "laughable" about my earlier suggestion of "decapitalising" Dublin to either Cork, Limerick, or Galway? Is it because I didn't suggest a small town in Mayo, Donegal or kerry?

Probably alot of people would object to it but it seems to me to be much more rational than this decentralisation scheme, even if it would cost alot more.
Perhaps it only seems to make more sense because I'm an idiot or something...

Seriously, I'd like to know. Bring your expertise and econonmic knowledge to bear on it for me please.

Aidan1

Then you presume entirely wrong.

One of these ideas is the 'If you build it, they will come' idea, another airy fairy suggestion ... Makes me laugh out loud when people talk like that.

I'm sorry, then what is your suggestion? All of the evidence I've seen supports the argument that 'jobs' (as an abstract) tend to cluster around centres with appropriate infrastructure and services to support investment. Generally, these 'clusters' are referred to as 'cities'.

Just have a look at the document in the link I posted. It clearly shows that employment and productivity growth is explicitly linked to urban areas.

You have hit upon one of the critical subtexts to this mess though. The Govt cannot 'command' private firms to locate in certain locations, hence these firms will locate in those areas best suited to their needs, subject to whatever the IDA can do to 'encourage' them. Hence a focus on urban areas. In recent years however, Dublin (and to much a lesser extent Limerick and Cork) have reached sufficient scale that they can now genuinely compete on an international scale (see Google or Amgen). Hence the Govt loses ever more control over where 'jobs' are located.

This 'plan' is partially an attempt to redress that increasing lack of control over the spatial shape of the economy.

As for the billion euro figure, this is a myth

Correct, the true figure will probably be much more.

Edit:
So either you are in favour of the same thing I am in favour of, ie. increasing population density in the West or not?
Increasing population density in 'the west' will accomplish precisely nothing unless any increase in population is concentrated in a very small number of urban centres (2 max - Galway and Sligo). Spreading new population around to a corner of every field will only make the problem worse, and make solving it even more expensive to resovle in the medium term.

ishmael whale

Aidan1 wrote:

Increasing population density in 'the west' will accomplish precisely nothing unless any increase in population is concentrated in a very small number of urban centres (2 max - Galway and Sligo).

You are, of course, correct but it might be clearer to say 'Increasing population in the West is pointless without increasing population density.'

Aidan1

Well, I know what I meant

Yeah, it was unclear. Would go further than your statement though - (which implies that its possible to increase the population without increasing the density ... ) - 'allowing' the population in rural areas in the state generally (and the mid east is as least as poorly off in this regard) to increase without directing policy so that substantial densification took place in certain areas would be a major error.

NewDubliner

gbh wrote:

As for the billion euro figure, this is a myth which opponents keep re-cycling without asking if its true. I'd like one person to do the sums and show where that billion comes from.

It's based on official government estimates that the cost of new buildings would be in excess of 900 million. After that there are many substantial costs which have not been disclosed. Some of this cost is being met by selling state properties that are not in use, this money would otherwise be used for other projects.

The fact is that no official figures exist for the total cost of the project.

Projects cost money and must pay their way. How much will your ideas cost us? Where are your figures?

We're not being destructive, we're trying to help you make a credible argument. Unfortunately, you've ignored every opportunity that's been offered (for example, to produce a cost/benefit analysis).

It's unfair of you to represent posters here as being against decentralisation when, in fact, they are simply against wasting money. This kind of mis-representation has done much to bring discredit on the political establishment.

The majority of the public would oppose the scheme if they knew that it would lead to more taxes, less services and dire traffic congestion.

Victor

smccarrick wrote:

The public have been sold a pup

I thought it was a pig in a poke?

Victor

gbh wrote:

Compromise

So you want ideals compromised?

Now are you seriously going to argue that someone in the far reaches of Donegal, Mayo, Kerry, or the BMW region is not marginalised?

Sure, the are on the edge of a country on the edge of a continent.

Where is the nearest University to these people.

Coleraine, Galway, Limerick or Cork and Galway respectively, with a bunch of ITs in between.

And why should there be Three University's within a ten mile area in Dublin?

Why not? Its roughly in proportion to population. Leinster has more than half the population and 4 out of 7 universities. About right, wouldn't you say?

Just an example of the imbalance in this country which is really incomparible with any other country in the world.

Sorry, run that one by me again.

If this was going on in say Australia where the Aboriginies were marginalised

Are you saying the children were ripped from your arms a placed with settler families?

You might ask, why do someone poeple have to wait an hour for an ambulannce if they have a heart attack?

I question the figure, but what is the obsession in living in the back end of nowhere, without a phone or a postcode or even a name on the road, where the ambulance can't find you?

Because there is not enough poeple to make a service sustainable.

No, because all the way out along the main roads from Ennis, the council has allowed bungalow after bungalow to be built, each with their own driveway onto the main road (note most accidents happen at junctions and accesses). And its repeated in many a town, killing the town centres. The biggest enemy of Mayo towns and Mayo civic life is Mayo County Council.

Or you might ask why do people in Donegal have to travel long distances to a university.

So, where would you have this university? Sligo? Letterkenny? If so, why no move all 10,000 civil servants to the same place and give that place the ability to compete on a national level rather than just squandering any ability to do something like that. Putting 10,000 civil servants in Sligo would mean the roads, railways and airport could have improved services, because there would be better demand. Scatter-gunning them to places like Youghal and Dungarvan does nothing.

Now the reason why some Dubliners oppose decentralisation is the same reason I and people down the country argue in favour of it, ie, proximity to decision making and policy formation.

Are you saying the kids in the flats in Pearse Street or Cuffe Street, neither more than a km from the Dail have much say in hte running of the country?

re- economic benefits - Remember, most Dublin people can live with their parents when going to college and even when working,

And? Congratulations, we get to have 3-bedroomed houses occupied by more than 2 people.

but people down the country who head to the capital for jobs must pay vast amounts of rent to landlords who own every second house.

Now, please go to www.cso.ie and find out how many rented properties there are in Dublin. I'm not sure if they keep statistics though on how many are owned by cute hoor country dwellers packing students into houses 20 at a time.

re-subsidising the regions - You are totally forgetting that perhaps 50% of Dublin workers are from outside the capital.

But wait, didn't you just say that these people were Dubliners - from Dublin. And question, if Dublin has a quarter of the countries population, how are half of the workers from the outside the capital. Are you suggesting that Sean from Claremorris has a nice civil service job while Anto from Darndale can't aspire to anything above stacking shelves in Dunnes?

Also, if there were more people down the country there would be no such subsidisation.

OK, explain that one to me, because I wouldn't want to be exposed as stupid.

Victor

ishmael whale wrote:

You are, of course, correct but it might be clearer to say 'Increasing population in the West is pointless without increasing population density.'

Delivering extra services is about increasing population concentration. Nobody is going to build a mulltiplex cinema in Belmullet unless its population increase to 25,000+

gbh

NewDubliner wrote:

It's based on official government estimates that the cost of new buildings would be in excess of 900 million. After that there are many substantial costs which have not been disclosed. Some of this cost is being met by selling state properties that are not in use, this money would otherwise be used for other projects.

The fact is that no official figures exist for the total cost of the project.

Projects cost money and must pay their way. How much will your ideas cost us? Where are your figures?

We're not being destructive, we're trying to help you make a credible argument. Unfortunately, you've ignored every opportunity that's been offered (for example, to produce a cost/benefit analysis).

It's unfair of you to represent posters here as being against decentralisation when, in fact, they are simply against wasting money. This kind of mis-representation has done much to bring discredit on the political establishment.

The majority of the public would oppose the scheme if they knew that it would lead to more taxes, less services and dire traffic congestion.

Well I think the plan is to sell off offices in Dublin. Much of government property in Dublin is in prime city centre locations where prices usually go for about 50million/acre. That would mean selling 20 acres to finance the new buildings. Shouldn't be too difficult.

TempestSabre

gbh wrote:

Well I think the plan is to sell off offices in Dublin. Much of government property in Dublin is in prime city centre locations where prices usually go for about 50million/acre. That would mean selling 20 acres to finance the new buildings. Shouldn't be too difficult.

How many of those buildings in Dublin are rented not owned?

Buildings is only part of the cost. Thats why its a Billion+

gbh

TempestSabre wrote:

How many of those buildings in Dublin are rented not owned?

Buildings is only part of the cost. Thats why its a Billion+

You are pulling the p**s surely? nobody could really be that ....(how should I phrase this?) ...reluctant to measure the benefits against the costs. and again its like the monty python sketch about asking for charity.. 'yah, but what's in it for me?'

eigrod

gbh wrote:

nobody could really be that ....(how should I phrase this?) ...reluctant to measure the benefits against the costs.

Oh yes there is somebody who is that reluctant. His name is Tom Parlon (TD) and the only figures he has put in the public domain thus far is the one that puts a positive spin on this mess, i.e. the money they aim to get from the sale of buildings. At no point has he addressed the question (despite being asked in numerous interviews) of the ongoing cost of it.

Macy

gbh wrote:

nobody could really be that ....(how should I phrase this?) ...reluctant to measure the benefits against the costs.

Has anyone measured the costs or the benefits? Certainly not the Government, as they know the numbers do not add up. A rough and realistic estimate of the costs has been given, taking us to nearly 2 billion - do you want to use your expert economic mind to do up an realistic estimate of the benefits?

Please take into account the number of rented buildings that can't be sold (and of those, buildings that have many years outstanding on leases which will have to be brought out). Also take into account office space for the 6000 that won't move or the cost of the redundancy package that'll be due if the move or sack them brigade get their way (a massive cost - hence the supposedly voluntary nature of the process).

I look forward to seeing the figures add up in favour of decentralisation.

eigrod

I see on Dept of Finance's website today that Minister Cowen made a presentation today to the Joint Oireachtas Committe on the new NDP 2007-2013.

I note that there isn't one reference to Decentralisation within it. Now, I'm no expert, but when I saw this I trawled through it fully expecting some reference within it. I'm not drawing any conclusions, but I thought it was interesting in its omission.

http://www.finance.gov.ie/viewdoc.asp?DocID=3964 (too long to cut and paste the content in this post)

ishmael whale

Just to be clear, I take it that at this stage we have dispensed with all the other folderol that tries to cloud this debate. i.e.

1. It is understood that the regions are subsidised by Dublin taxes and not the other way around

2. It is understood that there is already a good spread of well paid public service jobs throughout the country

3. It is understood that Ireland has a very weak multiplier, as we are a small open economy, so any local benefits from increased demand will be minimal This report estimates, on the basis of assessments of UK decentralisations:

Assuming the multipliers in Figure 3.1 apply in Ireland, they mean that for every 100 public servants who relocate to an Irish town, between 25 and 50 additional new jobs could be created locally as a result of increased expenditure and wider investment and spin-off benefits.

The ‘could’ is significant, as moving a government office to a city of 700,000 like Leeds offers potential for local linkages that, say, moving Fas to Birr just won’t have. But, given this is a Government commissioned report, I think its plain that the idea that each euro generates five more is total nonsense.

4. It is understood that considerable resources are already invested in regional infrastructure

5. It is understood that the real problem in regional development is the need to create a few concentrations of population, and the proposed programme does nothing about that (and in fact the solution to that problem lies in the hands of people in the regions and their local planning authorities).

So that all we are left with is the idea that maybe if the Government sold some Dublin offices/stopped renting and built some in regional locations there might be a saving in accommodation costs. Maybe there would, but do you not feel someone should have worked this out before deciding on the programme?

The only assessment of accommodation costs was made one year after the programme was announced – the executive summary is published here. It suggests that, in theory, we should see the accommodation costs breaking even in 20 years time. I say in theory as its not clear if this report takes account of the decision to keep significant buildings like the Custom House in public hands. Also, there’s no mention of a comparison of the lost to the State of selling a building in the Dublin area that almost certainly will appreciate in value faster than an office in Thomastown. In fact, there’s no actual numbers stated at all – which is sort of strange for a cost assessment.

The coyness about figures is also a feature of the published assessment of non property costs here: which simply lists the kind of things that will cost, without making any assessment of how much they will cost.

If the purpose of this thing was to save money, I think we can take it that these assessments would have been made before the programme was announced, rather than afterwards in response to much media incredulity. I would also take it that if there were any cost savings they’d be splashed all over both documents, Parlon would be planting the figures at every opportunity. Instead of which no money amount is stated at all.

eigrod wrote:

I note that there isn't one reference to Decentralisation within it.

Its a complete embarrassment to them - they have no idea how to get out of it.

TempestSabre

gbh wrote:

You are pulling the p**s surely? nobody could really be that ....(how should I phrase this?) ...reluctant to measure the benefits against the costs. and again its like the monty python sketch about asking for charity.. 'yah, but what's in it for me?'

The intended benefits of this plan (if you call it a plan) are clear. Votes.

The benefits of a well planned decentralisation plan is another thing entrirely.

gbh

I'm not going to waste my time any more with you people. The benefits of decentralisation are plainly obvious. You'd want to be blind not to see them.

As for costs such as 1 billion or two billion, I don't envisage that, but perhaps you in your biased way of making an argument do. However, Mary Harney has committed perhaps a billion and more to solving the A&E crisis in Dublin, reacting to public pressure and the need for votes(same ball game in Dublin as elsewhere). And will it solve the problem? no because it will require a billion this year and a billion the year after and so on.

As for subsidising the regions, I am sayign that the capital is full of people from the regions contributing to the Dublin economy, the most glaring example are our TD's and Senators. Are you going to deny this?

I'm off because you're all mad, mad I tell ya...

Aidan1

the capital is full of people from the regions contributing to the Dublin economy

As someone from 'the regions' working in the 'Dublin economy', I'd like to point out that the 'Dublin economy' is merely a (profitable) part of the national economy, and Dublin is merely a region within the state. Please don't be so divisive, it hurts my feelings.

Nice to see that Minister Cowen shares the feelings of the majority of posters here on regional development, saying today that " ... the goals of the National Spatial Strategy would form the basis of regional development, he indicated the investment must be focused. He noted the economic benefits enjoyed by regions adjacent to developing regions.

"We must avoid the development of a narrow localised mindset and try to ensure an integrated prioritised approach to regional development." (from Ireland.com)

Nice to see that the HSE also take a similar approach, when proposing new health infrastructure. (did someone mention the Hanley Report?)

jd

gbh wrote:

As for subsidising the regions, I am sayign that the capital is full of people from the regions contributing to the Dublin economy, the most glaring example are our TD's and Senators. Are you going to deny this?

I'm off because you're all mad, mad I tell ya...

I'm from "the sticks" too, and I'm not a public servant. This decentralisation "plan" is not a way to promote balanced regional development.

jd

Schuhart

gbh wrote:

I'm not going to waste my time any more with you people. The benefits of decentralisation are plainly obvious. You'd want to be blind not to see them

I've checked back over your posts. You don't seem to have identified any benefits.

gbh wrote:

As for costs such as 1 billion or two billion, I don't envisage that, but perhaps you in your biased way of making an argument do.

But if the plan has no benefits, €1 is too much to pay for it.

However, Mary Harney has committed perhaps a billion and more to solving the A&E crisis in Dublin, reacting to public pressure and the need for votes(same ball game in Dublin as elsewhere).

I don't think that money alone is the problem in the health services, but in any case your logic is flawed. If decentralisation brings no good, then it shouldn't be done regardless of what anyone is doing or not doing about A&E.

gbh wrote:

As for subsidising the regions, I am sayign that the capital is full of people from the regions contributing to the Dublin economy, the most glaring example are our TD's and Senators. Are you going to deny this?

Firstly, decentralisation leaves the Oireachtas in the capital (and if they moved presumably it would stop being the capital). Secondly, the point about who subsidises who seem to be just drawing attention to the fact that the tax paid by people outside Dublin generally stays within their county. Finally, there's a post up above that suggest that every 100 jobs might create another 25-50 downstream jobs. So these 10,000 public sector jobs might support another 5,000 downstream jobs at best. That's less than 1% of the Dublin labour market. Ineffectual as either a way of 'cooling' the Dublin economy or 'heating' the regional economy.