nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Decentralisation

uncivilservant

As a dublin civil servant, i'm sure most people can guess what my attitude is to the current implementation of mass decentralisation. But i'd be interested to hear what others think.

Good thing? Bad thing? Quit your whining and be happy you have a job?

Anyone?

Mods: I had considered posting this to B/E/F rather than Politics, but to be honest i'm not sure which board it suits more. PI probably ha.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Schuhart

NewDubliner wrote:

Moving the HQ from Dublin to Birr makes no operational sense either & maybe the labour court had this in mind.

I very much doubt it, as the Labour Court would simply have no remit on that. What I expect they have ruled on is the extent to which access to promotion is a reasonable expectation for someone who decides not to volunteer to serve in the new location – which is purely a HR thing.

As to the decision to locate FAS in Birr – clearly no business case has been presented that suggests this to be a sensible use of public funds.

NewDubliner

Schuhart wrote:

Think again. The story that sparks this most recent bit of interest is a Labour Court ruling that people who opt to remain in Dublin must have access to promotion in Dublin. That’s purely a HR issue – it actually makes no operational sense at all. If the office is going to Birr then clearly, from an operational viewpoint, no-one should be promoted in Dublin.

Moving the HQ from Dublin to Birr makes no operational sense either & maybe the labour court had this in mind.

The Dublin staff are victims of a failed stroke intended to save Tom Parlon's seat.

Schuhart

MG wrote:

The last thing it’s been debated as is a HR issue, which is natural as it would not be wise for civil & public servants to actually come out and say that real reason they don’t want to leave is that they are comfortable with their lives right now and don’t really fancy moving down to the sticks.

Think again. The story that sparks this most recent bit of interest is a Labour Court ruling that people who opt to remain in Dublin must have access to promotion in Dublin. That’s purely a HR issue – it actually makes no operational sense at all. If the office is going to Birr then clearly, from an operational viewpoint, no-one should be promoted in Dublin. But that operational issue is hardly mentioned at all.

MG wrote:

Much better to come up with vague notions about inefficiencies. Meanwhile, multinational manage to work in separate locations and most are outsourcing work in India and China, while running a European accounting centre from an IDA industrial estate.

The multinational parallel just doesn’t work. That relates to firms finding locations where the labour costs as cheap, providing a financial cushion for any higher costs involved from an inconvenient location.

Objectively, the decentralisation idea is a crock. It brings costs and no benefits, and I don’t see a need to make excuses for it. But that’s not to say that an idea that is a crock won’t grow political legs – as is the very case with decentralisation as, despite it being such an obviously bad idea, it hasn’t yet been reversed.

MG wrote:

Agreed. And the acid test of the power of the anti decentralization lobby will be to see if they are given the same message.

Indeed, except the only way of actually achieving the original target is to make the moves compulsory. That might be even less feasible than sacrificing Aer Lingus on the altar of Shannon. Hence, it may simply drag on, as it has, with small groups of people fired into any location West of Maynooth in the hope that will look like progress.

NewDubliner

MG wrote:

Agreed. And the acid test of the power of the anti decentralization lobby will be to see if they are given the same message.

There is no anti-decentralisation lobby. There is a lobby that opposes government waste.

A scheme which has no reference to cost or benefit cannot succeed.

This is not a vague notion, it's a certainty.

Just as Aer Lingus has told the mid-west to cop-on, so should the government.

ninja900 wrote:

Unlike years ago, it's not a criterion, it's a prerequisite. Usually two years in your present grade is requried, but service longer than that does NOT gain you anything. On the contrary, there have been several age discrimination cases lost by government departments who failed to give staff with high seniority a fair crack at promotion.

Does this not perhaps weigh on the mind of the decision makers?

ninja900 wrote:

That's rubbish, the only union really opposed to decentralisation is SIPTU and they represent only a handful of civil servants, if any (they are stronger in the state agencies like Fas however.)

The actual civil service unions - CPSU are in favour, PSEU "neither for nor against" officially but in practice in favour (doing little on behalf of their Dublin members) and the AHCPS, representing senior grades and by far the smallest of the three is opposed, but mainly on the grounds of waste of money.

I tend not to distinguish between civil and public servants, semi state workers, rather seeing all as government employees. SIPTU are the largest trades union in the country. The AHCPS represents the most powerful government officials. To me that’s a lobby and a damn powerful one.

Schuhart wrote:

This is true - the debate is always debated as a HR issue. Its all about whether the staff want to move or not. When you reflect on it, that's actually irrelevant. If the State saved money by sending people to Urlingford, then the public interest would be to send them to Urlingford whether they wanted to go or not. If (as is actually the case) it costs a squad of money to shift people out of Dublin and there's no discernable benefit other than a load of fat County Councillors getting their mugshot in the local paper at the opening of the new offices, then clearly we should not do it even if the staff were chomping at the bit.

I’d actually disagree with this. The last thing it’s been debated as is a HR issue, which is natural as it would not be wise for civil & public servants to actually come out and say that real reason they don’t want to leave is that they are comfortable with their lives right now and don’t really fancy moving down to the sticks. Much better to come up with vague notions about inefficiencies. Meanwhile, multinational manage to work in separate locations and most are outsourcing work in India and China, while running a European accounting centre from an IDA industrial estate. Some other ideas for vague excuses are:

1The administration is in its early months and there's an awful lot to do at once.
2. Something ought to be done but is this the right way to achieve it?
3. The idea is good but the time is not ripe.
4. The proposal has run into technical, logistic and legal difficulties which are being sorted out.

A transfer to Urlingford to the first person to figure out which most appropriate figure gave me these ideas……….

Schuhart wrote:

The Heathrow slots moving from Shannon is actually the first time a West of Ireland lobby has been comprehensively told to feck off. I've a feeling this is simply because the Northern card trumps the Western card. Belfast now carries more political weight than Shannon - unsurprisingly.

Agreed. And the acid test of the power of the anti decentralization lobby will be to see if they are given the same message.

The_Conductor

NewDubliner wrote:

Or more likely, in the case of the Civil & Public Services, probably not.

How will you estimate the efficiency gains and and how will you measure the cost of achieving them?

Its very much a case of those who are advocating the scheme delibertly not having a manner of measuring these gains/losses, so that a measure of success or failure on economic grounds cannot be measured. Of course, they would have you believe that economics have nothing whatsoever to do with it- that every little bohereen should have a small office on it, with locals employed- not those Dublin jackeens, who we really don't want in our communities anyhow. Shure, our local politicians have told us that these jobs can be done by anyone- so why not encourage as many of our youngsters as possible to stay in the area instead of migrating to Dublin/other towns/cities?

We've already decentralised 75% of the civil service and large tracts of the public sector out of the greater Dublin region- sometimes for the better, sometimes not. Towns like Longford and Ballinasloe feel very aggrieved by the current proposals- as the DSFA are moving staff from Longford to Carrick, and the Department of Agriculture from Ballinasloe to Portlaoise...... Local politicians never highlighted this happening- and people do feel agrieved.

When will this country ever wake up and see politicians for what they really are?

NewDubliner

Seanies32 wrote:

Yes, they probably will gain efficiency

Or more likely, in the case of the Civil & Public Services, probably not.

How will you estimate the efficiency gains and and how will you measure the cost of achieving them?

K-9

ninja900 wrote:

Aer Lingus will gain efficiency from moving from Shannon.
Public services will lose efficiency by moving to 53 scattered locations.

Yes, they probably will gain efficiency but the staff still aren't happy!:D

Shows you sometimes staff aren't the best barometer.

NewDubliner

BostonB wrote:

Has it any significant impact in the regions compared to the impact of net immigration in those same regions?

The present scheme has no mechanisms to estimate costs and benefits nor to measure the outcome. If it turns out to be a costly failure, there's no plan 'b'.

The arguments from the pro-decentralisation lobby run like this:

"It could be of some benefit to the regions."

"It might lead to reduced costs. Or, it might not."

"People can work outside of Dublin".

"We must do it."

BostonB

NewDubliner wrote:

...it is 'good for the regions' and that overrides any business logic.

Has it any significant impact in the regions compared to the impact of net immigration in those same regions?

NewDubliner

ninja900 wrote:

There is nothing more than a superficial similarity which is misleading.Aer Lingus will gain efficiency from moving from Shannon.
Public services will lose efficiency by moving to 53 scattered locations.

I think the point the 'pro-decentralisation' poster was trying to make was that it didn't matter if the scheme resulted in higher taxes or reduced efficiency, it is 'good for the regions' and that overrides any business logic.

Hotblack Desiato

Seanies32 wrote:

Anyway, I think decentralisation is one of those issues that people are not going to agree on.

I think everyone on this thread agrees that decentralisation is not a bad idea in principle.

In practice the current plan is an expensive, unimplementable, inefficient mess that will inflate the cost and reduce the effectiveness of public services for decades to come.

Given the increasing links between 'targets' and cost-of-living pay rises in the public sector, it's the staff who will end up carrying the can for politician's folly.

In a way as posted on the poll site it is similar to Aet Lingus and Shannon. Not exactly the same reasons of course, but the staff in the airport are quite similar to staff in the decentralisation programme. There are interesting similarities.

There is nothing more than a superficial similarity which is misleading.
Aer Lingus will gain efficiency from moving from Shannon.
Public services will lose efficiency by moving to 53 scattered locations.

Firetrap

I also think a lot of people can't get past the whole "Dublin has all the jobs" mentality. Whilst I do think that having certain departments or sections of them outside of Dublin is a good idea if thought out and done properly, Decentralisation as it's currently set out is not the way to go. I also frequently read snide comments in the media about staff in the public service who are supposedly all inefficient, lazy, overpaid and have great pensions. This is a compensation for being told they've to move to a different job in the arse end of Donegal.

Schuhart

MG wrote:

Unfortunately the debate about decentralisation has rarely touched on the public good.

This is true - the debate is always debated as a HR issue. Its all about whether the staff want to move or not. When you reflect on it, that's actually irrelevant. If the State saved money by sending people to Urlingford, then the public interest would be to send them to Urlingford whether they wanted to go or not. If (as is actually the case) it costs a squad of money to shift people out of Dublin and there's no discernable benefit other than a load of fat County Councillors getting their mugshot in the local paper at the opening of the new offices, then clearly we should not do it even if the staff were chomping at the bit.

MG wrote:

It's interesting comparing decentralisation to the Shannon AL contraversy. It seems to me that the lobby behind thwarting decentralisation is far more powerful than the Shannon lobby but gets far less attention.

I'd suggest reflecting on this again. The Shannon lobby managed to stunt Irish aviation for decades, all for the sake of a packed payroll in Clare. The massive cost inflicted on the nation for this modest gain strikes me as evidende of considerable influence. They even managed to get Government to lobby against Open Skies - which is really flat-earth stuff.

On the other hand, decentralisation is like Fianna Fail's Iraq war. Whatever political gain or objective they were trying to achieve has long vanished in the mist. However, despite being a very obviously costly and pointless policy, they cannot reverse it. If there was a coherent anti-Decentralisation lobby with influence, the Government would have rowed back the minute McCreevy got EU Commissioner. Alternatively, they'd do it right now to allow the dust to settle before the next election. Instead, they are scrabbling around trying to send some fecker to somewhere West of Maynooth at any price rather than admit they should just never have published such a daft scheme in the first place.

The Heathrow slots moving from Shannon is actually the first time a West of Ireland lobby has been comprehensively told to feck off. I've a feeling this is simply because the Northern card trumps the Western card. Belfast now carries more political weight than Shannon - unsurprisingly.

NewDubliner

Anyway, I think decentralisation is one of those issues that people are not going to agree on.

This because the 'pro-decentralisation' lobby refuses to engage in rational, fact-based debate and constantly move the goalposts when each argument is challenged and discredited.

Profit comes into the Aer Lingus debate but it shouldn't necessarily be the main concern for decentralisation.

This is shifting the goalposts. One of the main planks of the government's argument has been that its scheme would lead to reduced costs.

K-9

There is absolutely NO reason, other than those afore mentioned, to spread government human resources all over the map especially when their past record shows they have been up and running smoothly and efficiently in Dublin for decades.

Plenty of good reasons given but thats the worst!

Anyway, I think decentralisation is one of those issues that people are not going to agree on. In a way as posted on the poll site it is similar to Aet Lingus and Shannon. Not exactly the same reasons of course, but the staff in the airport are quite similar to staff in the decentralisation programme. There are interesting similarities.

Profit comes into the Aer Lingus debate but it shouldn't necessarily be the main concern for decentralisation. They wouldn't want to move even if the plan was to move the hub to Dublin. Its a tough situation but on this thread every poster in the last few months seems to be anti decentralisation and aren't going to be turkeys voting for Xmas!

NewDubliner

smccarrick wrote:

Irish Times poll of the day today is: Should the government proceed with its Decentralisation plans? Its almost amusing reading the comments.......http://scripts.ireland.com/polls/breaking/index.cfm

Interesting that while the majority vote is in favour, the comments are mostly negative. Typical of a situation where the proponents can't produce any rational arguments in favour of the current scam/scheme. But they still want it.

The_Conductor

Irish Times poll of the day today is: Should the government proceed with its Decentralisation plans? Its almost amusing reading the comments.......

http://scripts.ireland.com/polls/breaking/index.cfm

Hotblack Desiato

Firetrap wrote:

Interesting. Have they hit a brick wall when it comes to moving staff in state agencies?

Yes, definitely.

Also bear in mind that the 40% of civil service posts which have been filled, have mostly been filled by staff already working outside of Dublin.

In effect, it's a very expensive game of musical chairs where people shift from one provincial post to another one slightly closer to their home. Very few people will be moving their home, the so-called economic benefits for these towns do not exist.

At least one recent newspaper article specified "maintaining property prices" as a supposed benefit of decentralisation, how is that a benefit for local would-be first time buyers?

The hard questions left unanswered, as ever, are how they are going to fill the provincial vacancies left by "decentralisers", and what is going to happen to the surplus Dublin staff.

Firetrap

Interesting. Have they hit a brick wall when it comes to moving staff in state agencies?

Govt cannot force State agency staff - Cowen
Thursday, 30 August 2007 22:54

The Minister for Finance, Brian Cowen, has accepted that the Government cannot force public servants to leave Dublin by making promotions conditional on decentralising to the regions.

Mr Cowen was responding to a Labour Court recommendation which criticised the State training agency, FÁS, for introducing a so-called 'promotions clause' into future employment contracts.

FÁS staff were told they would only be eligible for promotion if they were prepared to move to Birr, Co Offaly.
Advertisement

Labour Court chairman Kevin Duffy said decentralisation of State bodies cannot be handled in the same way as the civil service because of the difficulty of staff transferring to a different agency if they chose to stay in Dublin.

He also recommended that effecting decentralisation on a voluntary basis can best be achieved by identifying realistic alternative career options for those who do not want to move.

Mr Cowen said that each State agency and its parent department would now have to take account of the Labour Court ruling.

He said the Government accepts the recommendation of the Labour Court, and believes it reflects concerns previously expressed by the Decentralisation Implementation Group.

The Tánaiste has asked his Department to engage with the unions representing staff in the State agencies generally to establish how progress can be made on this aspect of the Labour Court recommendation.

Mr Cowen went on to stress that decentralisation was progressing 'well' in the civil service.

He said that approximately 40% all civil service posts due to relocate are already filled, and he estimated that around 2,000 of these posts will have moved to their new locations by the end of the year.

Victor

Lets move the Examiner Sports Desk to Kilkenny.

NewDubliner

This is the editorial from the 'Examiner'. Totally ignores the cost and benefit issues and insinuates that the selfish staff should go wherever they're told for the 'greater good'. I think there's still quite a bit of Cork begrudgery in the (Cork) Examiner.

Decentralisation fiasco - Proposal doomed to sit in dust

THE Labour Court ruling that FÁS cannot make promotion conditional on staff being prepared to move to the training body’s proposed new headquarters in Birr, Co Offaly, is the final nail in the coffin for the Government’s decentralisation policy.

Announced on December 3, 2003, during a budget speech by then finance minister Charlie McCreevy, with his customary bluster and dismissive sabre rattling, the policy has been consigned to the back of the bottom drawer in the Government’s must-do filing cabinet.

Decentralisation’s demise is a pity. It is not the only good idea languishing in that dusty hospice for ambition — but condemned it most certainly is.

Any doubts about the status of the proposals can be put aside after even a fleeting glance at the official Government decentralisation website. It was most recently modified on October 16 — almost a year ago — an urgency reflected in the fact that the site admits it has had fewer than 850 visitors.

This urgency is infectious as the Public Appointments Service website decentralisation news update was last amended in September 2006.

Though as much a strategy to win the recent election as a realistic proposal, Mr McCreevy ignored imperatives outlined in spatial strategy policy, undermining that essential process in a profound way.

So what went wrong? Did Mr McCreevy overestimate the appetite of civil servants and the employees of State agencies for an alternative to life to the one they led in Dublin; for a life of blackberry picking, nights of amateur drama productions in windy parish halls and intermediate football? Did he underestimate the grip the charms of the capital and easy access to third-level education had on those he wished to transfer?

What he — and the Taoiseach who must have given his blessing — did underestimate was the opposition of those expected to move from Dublin.

Equally, Mr McCreevy overestimated his capacity to deliver despite bringing the flexibility of a contortionist to the definition of what decentralisation actually was.

The Public Appointments Service tells us that more than 10,500 civil and public servants applied to relocate. The website tells us that movement of staff within and between departments and offices continues with more than 2,100 staff “already assigned to posts which will decentralise”. This all sounds dandy but remember the site was last updated in September 2006.

All of this is a pity and once again shows our way of doing business in an archaic and poor light. Decentralisation — essentially an excellent and inevitable idea — has fallen on the notion of job ownership.

Those employed in the positions considered suitable for decentralisation believed — and were vindicated by the Labour Court — that the jobs were their personal property and not a function of public service, a function of how this society manages and sustains itself.

They believed that their rights outweighed the rights of the society that employs them to try to evolve in a sustainable way.

Self-interest has won the day but, once again, any criticism must be severely qualified by the acceptance that the notion of the greater good has been consigned to a place far more remote and dusty than even the very back of the bottom drawer in the filing cabinet.

However, the sorry episode has provided some light relief for the workers in the private sector. More used to seeing jobs decentralised — without any negotiation — to Bangalore rather than Banagher and unfamiliar with the comforts and security offered by the Labour Court, they can only wonder: how do they get away with it?

Hotblack Desiato

MG wrote:

Effectively, the unions & public representatives in Dublin are doing exactly the same as in Shannon by opposing relocating job outside of their area.

That's rubbish, the only union really opposed to decentralisation is SIPTU and they represent only a handful of civil servants, if any (they are stronger in the state agencies like Fas however.)

The actual civil service unions - CPSU are in favour, PSEU "neither for nor against" officially but in practice in favour (doing little on behalf of their Dublin members) and the AHCPS, representing senior grades and by far the smallest of the three is opposed, but mainly on the grounds of waste of money.

The public service unions are lobbying hard against it

I categorically assure you, the civil service unions are doing no such thing.

Very few people against it oppose it because it is "wasteful", they oppose it because it doesn't suit them. Unfortunately the debate about decentralisation has rarely touched on the public good.

There are many good reasons to oppose the present programme... does it matter which one you concentrate on? They're all valid.

I must have read by now well over a hundred articles in the various national newspapers about the waste of money and damage to public services that this programme is bringing.

Hotblack Desiato

MG wrote:

It'sinteresting that the first criterion you mention is length of service.

Unlike years ago, it's not a criterion, it's a prerequisite. Usually two years in your present grade is requried, but service longer than that does NOT gain you anything. On the contrary, there have been several age discrimination cases lost by government departments who failed to give staff with high seniority a fair crack at promotion.

The point is that to achieve promotion now, are you almost effectivelty oblioged to stay in Dublin?

No, although the scatter-gun approach to decentralisation will mean that in future, staff serving in the regions who wish to be promoted will have to be prepared to move to another location (other than Dublin).

You mention that 2/3 of civil servents are outside the greater Dublin region ( I'll take that as being correct, I've never been able to find that out)

It IS correct, just something the anti-Dublin crowd keep very quiet about.
There are Social Welfare, Revenue, Garda, Fas, etc. etc. offices all over the place.

but would it be fair to say that the higher grades (i.e. promotion opportuinities) are primarily based in Dublin?

Only really at assistant secretary level (i.e. 2 or 3 levels below the Minister)
and above. Probably less than 100 people in the country across all government departments. You have to have a capital somewhere :rolleyes:

NewDubliner wrote:

It think this is inaccurate. There is no anti-decentralisation lobby.

There are many people who oppose the wasteful spending represented by the current scheme.

There are many different kinds of people who oppose it, from motorists who'll suffer from increased traffic congestion caused by it, people whose taxes will increase, those who will suffer from diminished services and finally, the staff whose careers and family lives will be ruined.

I have to disagree, though I will say that they are far more subtle than the Shannon lobby. Effectively, the unions & public representatives in Dublin are doing exactly the same as in Shannon by opposing relocating job outside of their area.

The public service unions are lobbying hard against it because their members don't want to move house etc. Very few people against it oppose it because it is "wasteful", they oppose it because it doesn't suit them. Unfortunately the debate about decentralisation has rarely touched on the public good.

Personnally, I'd decentralise all the jobs to Belfast and unite the Shannon & Dublin lobbies

smccarrick wrote:

You aren't allowed to apply for promotion in the civil service unless 1) you've been in your current grade for a specific length of time, 2) your sickness and leave record are exemplary, 3) your annnual appraisal is above a certain level, 4) you sit written tests on aptitude, numerical ability and verbal reasoning, 5) you submit to a structured interview, 6) You must give a presentation to an interview panel of scenarios relevant to the promotion you are applying for.......

If you manage to clear 1-6 above, you 'may' be placed on a promotion panel (then again you may not). I'd like someone to say that merit is not involved there.......

It'sinteresting that the first criterion you mention is length of service. As I said that's another day's debate.

smccarrick wrote:

Edit- in the current situation, one has to agree not to stay in Dublin in order to get a promotion (irrespective of whether or not they are currently in Dublin). There is no case at present where you can be in Dublin and intend to stay in Dublin- and still go for promotion- so its the opposite of what you are suggesting. The Dublin based people have been hung out to dry. Mind you- the civil service is not based in Dublin- over 2/3 of civil servants are outside the greater Dublin region- so the current scheme suits them fine- and the unions don't really care, as it benefits more people than it screws......

S.

If you read my post, you will see that I agree with the Labour COurt recommendation that decouples promotion and leaving Dublin. The point is that to achieve promotion now, are you almost effectivelty oblioged to stay in Dublin? You mention that 2/3 of civil servents are outside the greater Dublin region ( I'll take that as being correct, I've never been able to find that out), but would it be fair to say that the higher grades (i.e. promotion opportuinities) are primarily based in Dublin?

NewDubliner

Firetrap wrote:

I wonder will any TD take up the mantle of Tom Parlon

Tom Parlon was special, it would be hard for anyone to be as unconvincing as him. But I think Willie O'Dea and Michael O'Cuiv are in the running. Both have the 'screw Dublin and give us the jobs' attitude.

Firetrap

No, I don't think there's a lobby either. To be honest, I don't think people who aren't directly affected by decentralisation give it any thought at all. It is nice to see a setback like the FÁS one though :cool: I wonder will any TD take up the mantle of Tom Parlon (who?) and try to convince all and sundry that it really is a great idea to move to Dungarvan/Clonakilty/Hackballscross

The problem with decentralisation is that no political party will have the guts to call it off for fear of invoking the ire of the natives of the towns earmarked for decentralising departments. I'm sure that privately a lot of Fianna Fail TDs know it's a dead duck and that they bit off more than they could chew but they're never going to admit that.

NewDubliner

MG wrote:

........the media seem to be very much behind the Trade Union lobby against decentralisation.

It think this is inaccurate. There is no anti-decentralisation lobby.

There are many people who oppose the wasteful spending represented by the current scheme.

There are many different kinds of people who oppose it, from motorists who'll suffer from increased traffic congestion caused by it, people whose taxes will increase, those who will suffer from diminished services and finally, the staff whose careers and family lives will be ruined.

The_Conductor

MG wrote:

It's interesting comparing decentralisation to the Shannon AL contraversy. It seems to me that the lobby behind thwarting decentralisation is far more powerful than the Shannon lobby but gets far less attention. In fact, the media seem to be very much behind the Trade Union lobby against decentralisation.

Specifically on the Labour Court recommendation, it seems correct that promoton should be based on ability rather than location (another days debate - does promotion happen on merit in the Civil service????). However, surely the consequence of this, and unfortunately the way it has always been, is that in reality one has to stay in Dublin to get promotion and therefore the whole process actually is location dependant.

You aren't allowed to apply for promotion in the civil service unless 1) you've been in your current grade for a specific length of time, 2) your sickness and leave record are exemplary, 3) your annnual appraisal is above a certain level, 4) you sit written tests on aptitude, numerical ability and verbal reasoning, 5) you submit to a structured interview, 6) You must give a presentation to an interview panel of scenarios relevant to the promotion you are applying for.......

If you manage to clear 1-6 above, you 'may' be placed on a promotion panel (then again you may not). I'd like someone to say that merit is not involved there.......

Edit- in the current situation, one has to agree not to stay in Dublin in order to get a promotion (irrespective of whether or not they are currently in Dublin). There is no case at present where you can be in Dublin and intend to stay in Dublin- and still go for promotion- so its the opposite of what you are suggesting. The Dublin based people have been hung out to dry. Mind you- the civil service is not based in Dublin- over 2/3 of civil servants are outside the greater Dublin region- so the current scheme suits them fine- and the unions don't really care, as it benefits more people than it screws......

S.