Decentralisation

gbh

Well you can't make a silk purse out of a pig's ear.

Its going to happen, thankfully, like it or not and in the best interests of the country. And in ten years people will be saying, 'remember all that fuss and all those opponents to decentralisation', and there'll be a good laugh about it.

I'm going to absolve myself from the debate now. As I have been representing the usually silent majority on this issue, I don't think I will convert the usually vocal minority.

So debate away among yerselves.

TempestSabre

Just like toll bridges are great for the country.

ishmael whale

gbh wrote:

Well you can't make a silk purse out of a pig's ear.

That's pretty much what we're saying.

gbh wrote:

As I have been representing the usually silent majority on this issue, I don't think I will convert the usually vocal minority.

You are following the well trod path decentralisation advocates go through. First, they present an array of misunderstandings of the topic. These are refuted. Then they retreat in confusion, making assertions that their view is unchanged despite being unable to justify it.

Rael

Seems to me that maybe, GBH could be Tom Parlon in disguise from all his stonewalling and non sensical arguments

gbh

Seems to me you need to grow a brain...

fly_agaric

gbh wrote:

in the interests of the country.

LOL. How very high minded and civic and noble of you! If only there were more of your ilk in Ireland.

Why then do you support a "decentralisation scheme" that has been pretty clearly exposed as an act of typical "Oirish" cute-hoorism?

Wouldn't have anything to do with enjoying seeing Dublin and Civil servants getting a good kick in the crown jewels from govt. would it?

Why not free your mind and admit that?

gbh

fly_agaric wrote:

LOL. How very high minded and civic and noble of you! If only there were more of your ilk in Ireland.

Why then do you support a "decentralisation scheme" that has been pretty clearly exposed as an act of typical "Oirish" cute-hoorism?

Wouldn't have anything to do with enjoying seeing Dublin and Civil servants getting a good kick in the crown jewels from govt. would it?

Why not free your mind and admit that?

I wouldn't lower myself to answering this...

All I will say is I'm right and you're wrong...ok

NewDubliner

gbh wrote:

All I will say is I'm right and you're wrong...ok

If you want to convince people that this is the case, you'll need to put forward rational arguments backed by facts. Otherwise your opinion is worthless. Maybe things work differently in the private sector?

Let's start with one fact, shall we, agree it and and then let's progress from there.

1: How much will the project cost?

fly_agaric

gbh wrote:

I wouldn't lower myself to answering this...

All I will say is I'm right and you're wrong...ok

okey dokey. I expected as much.
Are you getting an officeful of political prawns, er pawns, no, er, civil servants in your area as part of decentralisation?

Earlier you asked why oppose decentralisation if you think it is a progressive move. I'd ask again why support it if the govt's scheme for it is actually a bad idea? Either you or where you live are getting something out of it, or you are enjoying some schadenfreude at the civil services'/servant's or Dublin's expense.

Actually, those were kind of rhetorical questions so I don't care if you can't be bothered to "lower" yourself to answer them.

gbh

fly_agaric wrote:

okey dokey. I expected as much.
Are you getting an officeful of political prawns, er pawns, no, er, civil servants in your area as part of decentralisation?

Earlier you asked why oppose decentralisation if you think it is a progressive move. I'd ask again why support it if the govt's scheme for it is actually a bad idea? Either you or where you live are getting something out of it, or you are enjoying some schadenfreude at the civil services'/servant's or Dublin's expense.

Actually, those were kind of rhetorical questions so I don't care if you can't be bothered to "lower" yourself to answer them.

Have you ever studied economics? In a formal educational setting? Or did you derive your economic theory from talking with your mates after ten pints? Cause that's what it sounds like.

Here is your answer, and I don't care if you agree with it or not. In fact I'm hoping you disagree cause then I'll know I'm doing something right.

Actually here is your first lesson in economics.

You ever here of the multiplier effect? BAsically it means that every euro that is brought into a community, usually ends up giving value to four or five people more. The civil servant spends their euro in the butcher's shop. The butcher spends that euro in the groccer's shop. The grocer spends it in the carpenters. Thus the community benefit several times over from the spending power of the newly arrived civil servant. So that addresses the financial benefit to the local community.

Lesson Two. International economic competiveness, inflation etc.

Corporate HQ in US are wondering where should they build their new manufacturing facility in Europe. option (a) Dublin or hinterland as there is no real place elsewhere in the country to build it, but the cost of land, housing, as well as traffic congestion are prohibitive. option (b) eastern europe where land is cheaper. 9/10 they will choose EAstern Europe.

So if you reduce the upward pressure on house prices in Dublin then you have some hope of attracting new industry to Ireland.

I suppose I'm wasting my time with economic arguements on you. And frankly I'm amazed at the how you people set out to demonise anyone who is in favour of decentralisation. Do I demonise yee? NO. Because its an ignorant way to conduct a debate.

NewDubliner

gbh wrote:

Have you ever studied economics?

Have you ever studied project management?

1: How much will the project cost?

2: How many people will move house?

3: By how much will the project reduce the upward pressure on house prices in Dublin?

pete

gbh wrote:

You ever here of the multiplier effect? BAsically it means that every euro that is brought into a community, usually ends up giving value to four or five people more. The civil servant spends their euro in the butcher's shop. The butcher spends that euro in the groccer's shop. The grocer spends it in the carpenters. Thus the community benefit several times over from the spending power of the newly arrived civil servant. So that addresses the financial benefit to the local community.

Ah - a lesson in what I suggest might henceforth be termed "Breakfast Roll Economics" (BRE).

Consider this: of the original 53 locations, the ones actually attracting applications from Dublin staff (of which there have been ~4000?) are those within "reverse commuting" distance of Dublin - your Kildares, Meaths & Droghedas etc.

Many Civil Servants "decentralising" to these locations will already be living there, so there's little or no net benefit to the local economy from new entrants on that front.

The rest will either be driving or getting the train to work where, upon arrival each day, they will buy their morning paper & the essential breakfast roll, perhaps venture back out to pick up a hang sangwidge for lunch, and then go home again.

Hardly a decentralisation-fuelled consumer spending bonanza.

The rest of the locations just involve culchies moving around so don't count, (Since there's no net increase in spending, not because they're culchies. Mostly.)

The_Conductor

gbh wrote:

You ever here of the multiplier effect? BAsically it means that every euro that is brought into a community, usually ends up giving value to four or five people more. The civil servant spends their euro in the butcher's shop. The butcher spends that euro in the groccer's shop. The grocer spends it in the carpenters. Thus the community benefit several times over from the spending power of the newly arrived civil servant. So that addresses the financial benefit to the local community.

As Pete has pointed out the vast majority of the Dublin based civil servants who have volunteered for decentralisation have no intention whatsoever of moving house. If you check you will see that its all the jobs that are within a 40 mile radius of Dublin that are massively oversubscribed (even by people who are already located outside of Dublin and want to relocate closer).

gbh wrote:

Lesson Two. International economic competiveness, inflation etc.

Corporate HQ in US are wondering where should they build their new manufacturing facility in Europe. option (a) Dublin or hinterland as there is no real place elsewhere in the country to build it, but the cost of land, housing, as well as traffic congestion are prohibitive. option (b) eastern europe where land is cheaper. 9/10 they will choose EAstern Europe.

Try telling that to Intel / HP / Symantec / Dell / Clientlogic etc. etc. etc.

Factor no. 1 in their choice of location is not to do with the cost of land/ housing / traffic congestion etc- its to do with tax. Further the sole reason we have been successful in enticing these multinationals to our shores is our pittance of Corporation tax- which has gotten us into trouble with our European partners. The main reason that they are now going to Eastern Europe instead of here- is, yes, you got it- Corporation tax again. The new member states learnt from our little experiment and several of them have rates even lower than our 12% (including flat rate taxes).

gbh wrote:

So if you reduce the upward pressure on house prices in Dublin then you have some hope of attracting new industry to Ireland.

It takes a hell of a lot more than houseprices to attract industry to a country. Reducing the upward pressure on houseprices in Dublin would not be a factor in attracting new industry to Ireland. It would more probably be a factor in wage negotiations as justification for paying lower salaries. Salaries are however only a small part of the costs associated with industry.

gbh wrote:

I suppose I'm wasting my time with economic arguements on you. And frankly I'm amazed at the how you people set out to demonise anyone who is in favour of decentralisation. Do I demonise yee? NO. Because its an ignorant way to conduct a debate.

Unfortunately you quite simply have not presented any economic arguments, valid or otherwise, to support your viewpoint. We (collective) are not out to demonise anyone, be they in favour of decentralisation or otherwise. We are attempting to debate facts in the open and keep ourselves informed of any developments (mostly from the media). As many people have tried to point out to you- they are not against decentralisation per se, they are however against this illthought out plan that ignores the National Spatial Strategy and tries to legitimise parochial politics on a grandscale with the wholesale destruction of the civil service to the detriment of the taxpayer.

A debate was conducted earlier in this thread based on the economic aspects of decentralisation.

While I cannot speak for others regarding their ignorant way to conduct a debate- I personally would not hop into a discussion of any nature without first reading what had happened on the thread. I would also try to understand other people's point of view before I accused them of deriving their opinion from meetings in the pub after having imbibed 10 pints.

gbh wrote:

Have you ever studied economics? In a formal educational setting?

I have. Have you?

ishmael whale

gbh wrote:

Actually here is your first lesson in economics.

You ever here of the multiplier effect? BAsically it means that every euro that is brought into a community, usually ends up giving value to four or five people more. The civil servant spends their euro in the butcher's shop. The butcher spends that euro in the groccer's shop. The grocer spends it in the carpenters. Thus the community benefit several times over from the spending power of the newly arrived civil servant. So that addresses the financial benefit to the local community.

Here is your basic introduction to Irish economics, taken for the Irish Independent Leaving Cert exam brief.

http://www.unison.ie/features/education/exambrief/pdfs/leaving/economics_o&h3.pdf

Aggregate demand increases – however a huge percentage of this extra spending power leaks abroad in the form of higher demand for imports. This is because Ireland has a high marginal propensity to import.

Put simply, the increase in spending actually has very little impact on the local economy. Whether you buy your groceries in Lidl in Blanchardstown or Lidl in Edenderry there is no noticeable multiplier effect rippling out. Your figure of a multiplier of 4 to 5 is pure fantasy – although in fairness to you I think that gobber O’Cuiv was reported spouting similar nonsense recently.

When are you just going to accept you have no real appreciation of the issues at stake? It’s painful to watch you humiliate yourself by stumbling from one wild assertion to another.

TempestSabre

Look at the numbers of immigrants.
http://www.ireland.com/timeseye/whoweare/p3top.htm

How can you look at that and say moving 4,000 people (at best) out of dublin is going to have an effect on Dublins congestion, house prices or anything. Its a drop in the ocean.

NewDubliner

From the Examiner, June 9th:

AFTER a long period of apparent deadlock, there have been signs of cracking in government resolve in the long running argument around decentralisation - or rather the version of decentralisation being foisted on the public service by the government.

The move to establish, under the aegis of the Labour Relations Commission, a forum for discussions on the relocation of the FAS head office to Birr, Co Offaly, is being seen by the unions as a breakthrough, in that the infamous Birr clause (under which staff must sign up for a move to the Midlands as a condition for accepting promotion) has been lifted for the duration of the talks.

It remains to be seen whether this was anything other than a tactical response on the part of the Department of Finance aimed at removing an obstacle to the conclusion of a national pay agreement.

The intervention of the SIPTU General President, Jack O'Connor, certainly appeared to send shock waves through the system. Mr O'Connor suggested that his members would find it difficult to sign up to a new pay deal while those members employed in semi-state bodies faced the prospect of being relocated out of the capital against their will.

It has been suggested that Mr O'Connor subsequently stepped back from this position under pressure from senior colleagues in the union movement, concerned at a further jolting of the precarious social partnership apple cart. Whatever the case, the SIPTU boss's remarks appear to have had the intended effect.

The unions have been left to fight this battle largely alone. Throughout this long and tedious debate on the McCreevy decentralisation plan, busi- ness organisations have remained largely silent about the consequences of a potentially botched dispersal strategy for users of public services.

The trade unions have been doing a good-job of representing their members' interests and feelings. The Civil & Public Services Union, representing mainly young officials happy to get the chance to work in locations where housing is still affordable, has been broadly supportive.

Unions such as IMPACT and the Association of Higher Civil & Public Servants have provided trenchant opposition, once again reflecting the interests of more senior and highly qualified employees.

Much less has been written or spoken about the likely impact of decentralisation on users of public services. Employers' bodies have remained largely silent - IBEC's lack of any stance, aside from tepid support, stands out.

The employers' body may start speaking out when the quality of public services deteriorates - but by then it will be too late.

It is widely conceded that the transfer process will involve massive employee turnover, or churning. Inevitably, organisations will have to turn inward for a period as they absorb and train in new people. Huge numbers of experienced people will be lost to these organisations.

Take Enterprise Ireland. If the planned relocation of its HQ goes ahead, what impact will the loss of experienced business advisors have on its business client base? Will the quality of the advice provided not be degraded, for a period at least, while replacement people are being trained up?

People working in the private sector are expected to be adaptable, a point that supporters of the current project also make. Public servants, too, must be prepared to be adaptable. But, in a tight labour market, employers now take great care to devise proper strategies for the retention of key staff, being only too well aware of the costs of replacing staff.

Can anyone measure the costs of re-placing an individual with say, 20 years' knowledge and accumulated expertise? The casual approach to personnel management that lies at the heart of the current proposal is one that does no credit to those responsible for devising and now implementing the strategy.

The dishonest references to the plan as `voluntary', the failure to outline just how the talents of the surplus staff set to remain behind in Dublin will be best utilised - these are just two examples of how trust in government on the part of those at its very heart is corroded.

The pity of it is that the process of dispersing parts of government has worked well in the past, when con-ducted in a measured way. Dublin is spilling over its natural boundaries and many of its inhabitants are beginning to suffer real damage in terms of quality of life.

It surely is time to revisit the whole debate concerning the devolution of decision making to regions and local areas.

Why not pump more resources into the Western Development Commission, for example? Or build up the regional tourist and local enterprise boards? Some local bodies have worked well, others less so. The health boards fell prey to localism and politi- cal favouritism continues to dog our planning system at local level.

Local bodies such as Udaris na Gaeltachta appear to have outlived their usefulness. A real effort needs to be made to trust people and institutions with responsibility at local level.

Denmark and Finland are examples of places where devolution of power has worked well. Closer to home, the performance of some local bodies such as Dublin has improved greatly on the back of decent management and greater resources.

Department of Finance officials are pushing the current decentralisation a project with some vigour. This is ironic as no department has a greater vested interest in the centralisation of power - a centralisation set to be reinforced by the dispersal of rival departments to all corners of the land.

fly_agaric

gbh wrote:

Have you ever studied economics? In a formal educational setting? Or did you derive your economic theory from talking with your mates after ten pints? Cause that's what it sounds like.

LOL.
I'm quite surprised it sounds like that seeing as I have made no economic arguments good, bad, or just plain stupid for or against the govt.'s decentralisation scheme.
I'm not qualified to and I have no problems or hangups at all admitting that.
It seems you are yet another one of these tiresome and pedantic internet "experts" who wants people to fax them their f-ing PhD scroll before they are allowed to have even a non-crazy and reasonably evidence-based opinion on anything - or maybe even worse, someone who thinks economics is a religion/science that provides the answers to everything.

Read my earlier post where I made some quite simple common-sense, as I see it, objections to this decentralisation scheme.
In fact I was even somewhat supportive of a very much more radical and extremely expensive project (decapitalising Dublin) to develop another city or region of the country such as Galway or Cork/Limerick to act as a Dublin-Leinster counterweight but I have the humility to leave the pure economic arguments for or against that project to those with the knowledge of such things. "Experts" such as yourself say.:)
Becuase I'm from Dublin I wouldn't be enthusiastic about it but it would seem more rational to me than this scheme.

gbh wrote:

Actually here is your first lesson in economics.

You ever here of the multiplier effect? BAsically it means that every euro that is brought into a community, usually ends up giving value to four or five people more. The civil servant spends their euro in the butcher's shop. The butcher spends that euro in the groccer's shop. The grocer spends it in the carpenters. Thus the community benefit several times over from the spending power of the newly arrived civil servant. So that addresses the financial benefit to the local community.

Lesson Two. International economic competiveness, inflation etc.

Corporate HQ in US are wondering where should they build their new manufacturing facility in Europe. option (a) Dublin or hinterland as there is no real place elsewhere in the country to build it, but the cost of land, housing, as well as traffic congestion are prohibitive. option (b) eastern europe where land is cheaper. 9/10 they will choose EAstern Europe.

So if you reduce the upward pressure on house prices in Dublin then you have some hope of attracting new industry to Ireland.

Thank you Mawster. Your humble Padawan is grateful for the drops of economist's wisdom that fall as beads of precious dew from your sweaty.....:)

Actually, even as an economic ignoramus, most of that benefit to the local business community stuff makes sense to me. Provided of course its your community they move to, which was kind of the point I was making there earlier, wasn't it?
The bit about how moving these few thousand civil servants out of Dublin will stop Dublin's property boom in its tracks and thus make Dublin more attractive to companies to locate in - hmmm?. Talk about butterflies and hurricanes! Could you run that by me again Mawster?

gbh wrote:

And frankly I'm amazed at the how you people set out to demonise anyone who is in favour of decentralisation. Do I demonise yee? NO. Because its an ignorant way to conduct a debate.

Fair enough.
It's just very hard not be irritated sometimes.
If you read through this thread the weight of evidence seems to me to be very much on the side of those who say that this scheme is bad.

The people who support it always eventually retreat to the fact that with this scheme the govt. is at least doing something, anything to develop areas outside Dublin. Those who would oppose it are opposing developing the regions and are going against the national interest - not because the scheme is bad --> they are nasty begrudgers/stick-in-the-muds or self-interested civil servants! Hows that for demonisation?

Diaspora

fly_agaric wrote:

If you read through this thread the weight of evidence seems to me to be very much on the side of those who say that this scheme is bad.

Totally agree the evidence is that this plan was nothing more than a political stroke prior to the local elections; decentralisation is a good idea but this plan has the potential to undermine the 80 years it has taken to develop the public service.

Many countires have decentralised including the US and UK but critically these two countries have retained the main departments in the Capital and transferred only activities that are not location sensitive in synergy terms.

Critically this plan was the Death of the National Spatial Strategy which was sold as the next 'development blueprint' for this country only 12 months before decentralisation was foisted upon the Civil Service.

It is time for this goverment to walk away from the current plan and develop a realistic plan that involves reform of the division of services in the civil service and to select locations where civil servants actually wish to go.

If I were told that a had to move to Charlestown or Newcastle West or be passed over for a promotion I would stay till the next election have my say and promptly emmigrate or sell my services to the private sector.

NewDubliner

Diaspora wrote:

If I were told that a had to move to Charlestown or Newcastle West

Rumour has it that there was no problem getting people to move to Newcastle West, most of the applicants already live there and work in Limerick. These are the people who were expensively trained to take up their positions in Limerick. Now, they'll have to be trained again & new volunteers found & trained for the vacancies in Limerick.

Not sure what the economic benefit to the local economy of Newcastle West will be. There might be a drop in petrol sales. 'GBH' with his great expertese in things economic will be able to answer that.

The cost of the relocation scheme is till unknown.

gbh

smccarrick wrote:

Unfortunately you quite simply have not presented any economic arguments, valid or otherwise, to support your viewpoint. We (collective) are not out to demonise anyone, be they in favour of decentralisation or otherwise. We are attempting to debate facts in the open and keep ourselves informed of any developments (mostly from the media). As many people have tried to point out to you- they are not against decentralisation per se, they are however against this illthought out plan that ignores the National Spatial Strategy and tries to legitimise parochial politics on a grandscale with the wholesale destruction of the civil service to the detriment of the taxpayer.

A debate was conducted earlier in this thread based on the economic aspects of decentralisation.

While I cannot speak for others regarding their ignorant way to conduct a debate- I personally would not hop into a discussion of any nature without first reading what had happened on the thread. I would also try to understand other people's point of view before I accused them of deriving their opinion from meetings in the pub after having imbibed 10 pints.


I have. Have you?

The economic benefits to the country/taxpayer may in fact be immeasureable. ie, the saving to the environment from people stuck all day in traffic jams. Can you put an actual cost on that?

Secondly, there are higher civil servants opposed to this. 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 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. 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.

Thirdly, I think the question should be asked in a sort of cost/benefit analysis way, 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. Well here is one possible answer. Anytime someone down the country wants to meet an official from the department of justice, agriculture, environment, they must head to Dublin. Now you might argue, not so, there are sub offices all around. And indeed there are and there seems to be no dimunition of service just because a citizen goes to a sub office and not the head office.
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, but more the benefit economically to regions that traditionally have suffered from economic disadvantage and low take up of local services such as post offices and bank branches, forcing these outlets to close and causing suffering to local people as a result. And it is a very common occurance, while in Dublin people are queing out the door at banks, post offices, hospitals, airports, train stations, bus stations, need I go on?

smccarrick wrote:

As many people have tried to point out to you- they are not against decentralisation per se, they are however against this illthought out plan that ignores the National Spatial Strategy and tries to legitimise parochial politics on a grandscale with the wholesale destruction of the civil service to the detriment of the taxpayer.

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.

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.