Decentralisation

Firetrap

Back on topic, I was driving today and listening to Radio 1. Tom Parlon was on, wearing his CIF hat. There was a Fine Gael TD (I think....I only heard parts of it) who said that Decentralisation has cost €1 billion. WTF!

The_Conductor

Firetrap wrote: »

Back on topic, I was driving today and listening to Radio 1. Tom Parlon was on, wearing his CIF hat. There was a Fine Gael TD (I think....I only heard parts of it) who said that Decentralisation has cost €1 billion. WTF!

Probably Simon Coveney (unless they decided to let Richard Bruton on air )?
I think the figure being bandied around is EUR980 million (purely for property acquisitions and fitouts- no other costs having been quantified).

pvt.joker

What an utter disgrace. And have we ANYTHING to show for this 980 million in terms of increased productivity/economic benefit to the regions?

Firetrap

Well, some civil servants who were already living and often working in the regions got jobs closer to their homes, saving themselves a commute in the morning. Oh, and some of them got nice promotions to boot :rolleyes:

NewDubliner

pvt.joker wrote: »

What an utter disgrace. And have we ANYTHING to show for this 980 million in terms of increased productivity/economic benefit to the regions?

Sure we do, Brian Cowen is very popular in Tullamore, for moving a chunk of the Department of Finance and providing extra staff to fill the empty cubicles. I think I recall reading that a delighted senior manager (100k/year) there now has more time to devote to his golf.

That said, they have not spent the 980 million yet, that's what they want to spend . Cutbacks might reel that in a bit, now Brian's got his piece of the cake.

irish_bob

NewDubliner wrote: »

Sure we do, Brian Cowen is very popular in Tullamore, for moving a chunk of the Department of Finance and providing extra staff to fill the empty cubicles. I think I recall reading that a delighted senior manager (100k/year) there now has more time to devote to his golf.

That said, they have not spent the 980 million yet, that's what they want to spend . Cutbacks might reel that in a bit, now Brian's got his piece of the cake.

who said fianna fail never look any further than the next election

the unions will get what they want at the expense of badly needed infrastructure

The_Conductor

irish_bob wrote: »

the unions will get what they want at the expense of badly needed infrastructure

Just out of curiousity- what is it that you think the unions want?

Riskymove

irish_bob wrote: »

who said fianna fail never look any further than the next election

the unions will get what they want at the expense of badly needed infrastructure

and what has badly needed infrastructure got to do with Decentralisation?

santry_goonshow

I am frustratred looking at this thread, as I do from time to time because nobody really debates the important things about decentralisation, which are:

Its not decentralisation, its dispersal. Decentralisation is allowing Govt Departments make fewer decisions and encouraging locally based local authorities and State agencies to make more that are appropriate to their regions. Ireland is the most centralised of all the countries in the OECD and urgently requires decisions to take account of local arrangements. There are not enough staff in Councils for example and too many in office blocks belonging to Govt Departments and they directly spend 91% of the public budget which the OECD recently said was very bad practise. Anyway to different things and we should even use the word.

Taking 50,000 to 60,000 Civil servants out of Dublin is a good idea - dispersing them is not. Other states have made smaller cities near their former capitals become the e.g. Canberra is now the administrative capital of Aus., Ottowa the administrative capital of Canada, Brasilia is the capital of Brazil. The effects were measured, in fact the transport, space and rent cost savings of doing that in all three countries is the subject of many studies etc. on the matter. However, I believe that the Government should have identified one location or possibly two and concentrated the development there. Canberra was a tiny crossroads town with no bypass when it was chosen. It was chosen as a compromise b/t Sydney and Melbourne. Brasilia is a former forest, but purpose built by the Brazilians in the 1950s and the location identified because its as near to the very centre of that country as you can get. Ottowa was just a village, and had only lumberjacks in it when Queen Victoria chose it, especially because it lies on the border between Ontario and Quebec and so allowed all Canadians to claim it. The Governments of all 3 went in and built the cities ad hoc, with the view that they needed to allow working space and residential space and the cities were perfectly planned. After about 20 years of existence each of the cities experienced an economic boom independently of the rest of the economy. And the good news is that the cities that "lose" the Government agencies also see a boom.

Unfortunately the Government couldn't make a distinct decisions and I for one would hope that this nonsense is stopped now and that we go on to name one city, hopefully a small one that we build up gradually as the new administrative captial. Athlone has a compelling case geographically, whereas Limerick and Galway could be twinned to help provide a huge Atlantean city corridor which already has an airport a railway and a lot of feeder towns.

BOHSBOHS

take 60,000 civil servants out of dublin ??????

theres only ~30,000 in the entire civil service in the whole country so taking
60,000 out of dublin might be difficult

santry_goonshow

BOHSBOHS wrote: »

take 60,000 civil servants out of dublin ??????

theres only ~30,000 in the entire civil service in the whole country so taking
60,000 out of dublin might be difficult

Fair enough, but you can count them a number of ways. If you add in ALL the staff from state agencies and specialist Government funded initiatives that are present in Dublin you get far more than 30,000 and I wasn't saying partial dispersal, I was going for the whole kit and kaboodle.

The_Conductor

santry_goonshow wrote: »

Fair enough, but you can count them a number of ways. If you add in ALL the staff from state agencies and specialist Government funded initiatives that are present in Dublin you get far more than 30,000 and I wasn't saying partial dispersal, I was going for the whole kit and kaboodle.

I'd also point out that the current scheme is actually the 6th scheme in the past 30 years. Less than 40% of the civil service is actually present in Dublin at all. Prison officers are considered civil servants, as are the employees of government Departments and certain state bodies. The rest of the public sector is also very small, with the exception of the HSE, who employ over 200,000. The Irish Civil Service, contrary to what you expect, is actually the smallest civil service per head of population in the whole OECD.

I do agree with your previous post re: dispersal of posts willy nilly all over the place. We have a National Spatial Strategy- with a number of gateway cities and towns. If the national interest was actually being served in the decentralisation scheme- the decentralisation proposals would have focused on the gateway cities and towns, delivering broadband and other infrastructure which is crucial in any modern society. Instead we have a communications network worse than that of many third world countries. I think this is what "Irish_Bob" was referring to. I don't disagree with him- I'm just curious as to why he thinks the unions are to blame for the lack of vital investment in infrastructure? The firesale of Eircom and the shenanigans since the sale, are more to blame for the poor infrastructure than anything else.........

The government did however make a distinct decision regarding decentralisation- it was not based on economic principles, or the greater good of the country- it was based purely on parochial or feudal politics. How much can we disperse these posts around the country to try to maximise our votes come election time. Thats it pure and simple, nothing more, nothing less.

mountainyman

santry_goonshow wrote: »

whereas Limerick and Galway could be twinned to help provide a huge Atlantean city corridor which already has an airport a railway and a lot of feeder towns.

Limerick LOOKS like a capital. It is a georgian city with a magnificent river which the new ministries could be built along.
It would be a great capital.
Limerick Galway Derry.

NewDubliner

We can make significant cost savings by keeping the capital we already have.

santry_goonshow

NewDubliner wrote: »

We can make significant cost savings by keeping the capital we already have.

Cost savings. Short term-thinking right there.

Go check out the millions of articles about the building of Canberra, Ottowa, Islamabad, Brasilia, Abuja. Each of these were so well planned and because they were not appended to existing poor infrastructure they save aministration costs, have brilliant public transport and highly desireable places to live with most civil servants very happy to leave their former abode.

What in fact happened in all cases (except Ottoawa) is that the presence of a new city, once it takes off and reaches a population over 100,000 adds about 8% GDP per annum to the national economy, but doesn't overheat the exisiting infrasture. The better news is that the city that gives up the public service office and residential space also wins because it absorbs the space and infrastructure for more intensly "productive" activities and so grows up to 5%. Now I know that these are modest compared to Celtic Tiger Ireland, but that could be the only growth we see for the next 10 years.

If you ask me not moving the civil service to one location is a massive opportunity lost.

The only problem with grafting this into a city like Limerick is that it would have to be rebilt to such an extent that you'd have every money-grabbing nimby muppet sweating the Government for all they can get.

eigrod

santry_goonshow wrote: »

Cost savings. Short term-thinking right there.

Go check out the millions of articles about the building of Canberra, Ottowa, Islamabad, Brasilia, Abuja. Each of these were so well planned and because they were not appended to existing poor infrastructure they save aministration costs, have brilliant public transport and highly desireable places to live with most civil servants very happy to leave their former abode.

What in fact happened in all cases (except Ottoawa) is that the presence of a new city, once it takes off and reaches a population over 100,000 adds about 8% GDP per annum to the national economy, but doesn't overheat the exisiting infrasture. The better news is that the city that gives up the public service office and residential space also wins because it absorbs the space and infrastructure for more intensly "productive" activities and so grows up to 5%. Now I know that these are modest compared to Celtic Tiger Ireland, but that could be the only growth we see for the next 10 years.

If you ask me not moving the civil service to one location is a massive opportunity lost.

The only problem with grafting this into a city like Limerick is that it would have to be rebilt to such an extent that you'd have every money-grabbing nimby muppet sweating the Government for all they can get.

Canada, Australia, Brazil, Ireland. Spot the odd one out from a size perspective ?

Ireland's a small country from a size perspective and Dublin isn't that far off from being the centre point of that small country. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

The_Conductor

The population of Canberra is 342,000
The population of Ottawa is 1.22 million
The population of Islamabad is 956,000
The population of Brasilia is 2.12 million
The population of Abuja is 784,000

The population of Dublin (to include the Eastern corridor) is 2.95 million
The population of Cork (to include ring towns) is 376,000
The population of Waterford is 45,780
The population of Galway is 72,730
The population of Limerick is 90,780

Abuja is the only purpose built new capital of the cities you listed- of this in excess of 95% of the building costs (total including housing) was borne by the federal government (from oil revenues). Very few civil servants or workers can afford to live there- and are incentivised to commute with petrol vouchers to cover their commute from the previous capital Lagos.

All of the other cities were pre-existing cities- and of them population wise, Canberra and Ottawa have actually fallen in size since the administrative functions moved there (why- I have no idea?)


Re: the Irish cities- as per above, there simply is not the economy of scale in Ireland that there is in the other countries (with the possible exception of Cork- but you'd be in the same situation as Dublin then). We are a small country with a total population of just over 4 million- and most recent statistics from the CSO show that the growth in our population which was recorded over the past few years has slowed right down and with current trends will be reversed within 4 years. None of the cities other than Dublin and Cork have densities similar to any of those in the countries you listed.

I do agree with you that the scattergun approach in the decentralisation scheme is a big mistake- but I disagree with you on what a logical and worthwhile approach to take would have been. In my opinion if they were going to go ahead with it- the National Spatial Strategy should have been consulted- and encouragement given in reasonable measures for the cities and towns identified as gateway towns in the different regions, instead of flittering away the possible gains in the manner that has happened.

There is a difference between short-term cost savings, and long term additional expenses which is what is going to happen with the current decentralisation scheme. They haven't dared sit down and try to reasonably quantify the costs- the 980 million is purely buildings and kit-outs ffs. If you accept that well over 60% of the civil service are already located outside of Dublin- mostly from the previous decentralisation schemes- moving to a new administrative capital becomes a moot point- as what are you moving?

There really does seem to be a perception that everything is up in Dublin, which is far from the true situation. Its a perception perpetuated in the media- where they also insist on going on about how government spending is concentrated in the capital- when the actual figures show massive net outflows from Dublin to the regions. Its catering to feudal instincts- playing people off against each other- and making Dublin the big bogey man.

Yes, the government ****ed up- but further catering to pure opportunism and parochial politics isn't going to make matters any better.

irish_bob

eigrod wrote: »

Canada, Australia, Brazil, Ireland. Spot the odd one out from a size perspective ?

Ireland's a small country from a size perspective and Dublin isn't that far off from being the centre point of that small country. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

but it is broke

NewDubliner

irish_bob wrote: »

but it is broke

Very witty, but what do you mean by broke? What is broken?

We already have decentralisation, we don't need any more of it.

Costly make-work schemes such as the Department of Finance offices in Tullamore and the Legal Aid Board in Cahirciveen should be closed down.

Firetrap

Moving large trances of the public service out of Dublin isn't a magic bullet that's going to solve unemployment problems or improve services overnight. If the people who like to knock the public service think things are bad at the moment......

pvt.joker

"There is also speculation in Leinster House about a review of the Government's decentralisation programme."


http://www.rte.ie/news/2008/0708/economy.html


Hopefully the whole damned thing will be shelved

eigrod

pvt.joker wrote: »

"There is also speculation in Leinster House about a review of the Government's decentralisation programme."


http://www.rte.ie/news/2008/0708/economy.html


Hopefully the whole damned thing will be shelved

Nope ! They couldn't bring themselves to tell several local TDs that they aint' getting a piece of the pie :

From Lenihan's speech @ http://www.finance.gov.ie/viewdoc.asp?DocID=5370 :

The Government has also decided, in the light of the current Exchequer position, that further expenditure for the acquisition of accommodation for decentralisation will await detailed consideration of reports from the Decentralisation Implementation Group.

Long finger, huh !

Riskymove

They were never gonna come out and say they were scrapping the whole plan, but this means its gonna be on hold for a few years.

I reckon that projects where offices are being built or have been bought will go ahead now bu everything else on long finger

NewDubliner

Today's Sunday Business Post has an article at http://www.sbpost.ie/post/pages/p/story.aspx-qqqt=NEWS+FEATURES-qqqs=news-qqqid=34420-qqqx=1.asp

Some of the lies planted by the spin doctors have taken root:

Given last week’s decision not to commit further funds to acquiring sites, the state has made a profit of more than half a billion euro from the controversial programme.

That's just disposal of assets. It's not a profit.

According to figures prepared by the Department of Finance, just 2,201 of the proposed 10,793 civil servants and public sector workers have so far moved from the capital under the decentralisation plan.

Not many of the 2,201 actually lived or worked in Dublin.

There's no mention of extra people hired to fill vacancies in rural offices or to replace losses in Dublin.

Hotblack Desiato

Editorial in today's Irish Times:

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2008/0715/1215940936972.html

Decentralisation halt

THE GOVERNMENT'S announcement of its intention to suspend further expenditure on the acquisition of accommodation for its decentralisation programme was long overdue. Only a fool would buy sites or sign expensive office contracts in a falling property market.

Having originally embarked on a chaotic and uncosted decentralisation programme that envisaged 10,000 civil and public servants moving out of Dublin to 53 locations, there was a reluctance to shout stop. In the end, the worsening state of its finances has come to the Government's rescue.

Last year, having sold €500 million worth of State property, the net cost to the Exchequer for the decentralisation programme and the acquisition of new sites and offices was estimated at €400 million. About 2,000 civil servants had been transferred to 29 towns, some of them from other rural locations. The plan to relocate State agencies had almost ground to a halt.

The decentralisation plan has been a costly, politically-inspired mistake that paid no heed to the Government's own spatial strategy. Nobody would argue against the benefits of a significant relocation of certain administrative Civil Service functions to provincial towns. Those making the voluntary transfer would benefit from a better quality of life, while the extra spending would boost the local economy.

Except only a fool is going to attempt to move home in the current property market so they can decentralise. It'll be people already living outside of Dublin looking for a job closer to home, and who won't be moving house - but this was predominantly the case already. So no extra spending at all to boost anything.

But the exercise should not damage the efficiency of a department or the public services being provided. This is especially important where senior management and executive decision-making are involved. An OECD report has warned the Government against dislocation and fragmentation arising from badly planned decentralisation

The Decentralisation Implementation Group (DIG) has reported good progress in its efforts to transfer clerical staff and administrative functions out of Dublin. But difficulties remain in relation to State bodies. Resistance by technical and professional staff continues. There is also the question of what productive work can be found for senior civil servants who insist on remaining in Dublin. In its report, the DIG noted that the availability of advance and permanent accommodation in provincial areas had been a key driver of the decentralisation programme. Now that the acquisition of properties has been put on hold, there will be time and a valuable opportunity for the Government to assess the ramifications of this contentious programme in light of the concerns expressed by the OECD and by a range of other bodies.

NewDubliner

This in today's Irish Times, Dr Mansergh's defense of the indefensible is quite impressive. He almost sounds socialist.

60 justice employees transfer to Tipperary

SIXTY EMPLOYEES of the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform have been transferred to Tipperary town under the Government's decentralisation programme.....
.....
The Irish Times has learned that most of the jobs in the Tipperary offices have been filled by civil servants moving from other provincial offices, particularly those in Limerick. Out of 55 staff currently based in Tipperary, just two transferred from the capital.

At the ceremony, Dr Mansergh said: "At the risk of shocking some of our metropolitan commentators, who are quite determined not to find a good word to say about it, decentralisation is part of the process of redistributing wealth within this country, and ensuring that the entire resources of this country are not swallowed up meeting the needs of an overcrowded greater Dublin area."

dresden8

Only a fool would buy sites or sign expensive office contracts in a falling property market

Indeed. But they could buy cheap property in a tough market time, just like the rich do.

The real fools buy at the top of the market.

NewDubliner

What will be the impact of the proposed merger of the Human Rights Authority, Data Protection Commissioner and Equality Authority?

The DPC has only recently been gutted and given to Portarlington and the EA is due to be endowed on a needy Roscrea. Not sure if the HR body was promised to anyone. Will they merge and occupy three locations or will staff be forced to relocate once more?

SerialComplaint

NewDubliner wrote: »

What will be the impact of the proposed merger of the Human Rights Authority, Data Protection Commissioner and Equality Authority?

The DPC has only recently been gutted and given to Portarlington and the EA is due to be endowed on a needy Roscrea. Not sure if the HR body was promised to anyone. Will they merge and occupy three locations or will staff be forced to relocate once more?

It's hard to see the logic in including the DPC in this group, as they operate in a totally different area. The only thing they have in common is coming under the Dept Justice umbrella. I understand that National Disability Authority is also slated to join this merger.

Surely they won't roll back on the DPC move to Portarlington? I wonder if the planned moves of the Equality Tribunal & the EA will proceed, or will this be used as an excuse to walk away from these misplanned moves?

SkepticOne

Could the State not save more money outsourcing a lot of these jobs to India rather than to rural areas?