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

Tuars

ishmael whale wrote:

It is simply a fact that Irish domestic consumer spending does little to promote the domestic economy. What we make money out of is producing stuff for export, and what we spend it on we import.

So you're ordering your Chinese takeaway directly from Bejing then:)?

ishmael whale wrote:

I would query the usefulness of spending money moving Government office staff about in any configuration...

Great, why don't we all move to Dublin so. It'll cut down on the transport and communication costs if we all just sit on the M50, roll down the car window and shout at each other:p. Is that just lip service to the NSS on your part?

ishmael whale wrote:

I’m not aware of any evidence showing consumer spending relating to decentralised offices makes any impact on the local economy. Castlebar is slap in the middle of Mayo, Ballina is also host to a decentralised office. Yet, as we can see above, Mayo is still a net recipient of state funds.

Well, for better or worse I've lived in these towns and I've seen the benefits. By the sounds of it you've never been to Mayo or you would realise that decentralising part of a department isn't going to turn the whole county into a roaring tiger economy. It certainly made a difference though.

ishmael whale wrote:

With respect, this is the kind of thinking that has been used to starve the city of resources, with the result that we’ve all ending up living here but without the infrastructure that we need. Dublin is not a large city, so talk of it ‘falling back to European levels’ is unnecessary.

With respect, no it's not. The kind of thinking that has left us all ending up living here but without the infrastructure that we need is the one that forces people to migrate to the city at a rate that it cannot support because they have no alternative employment in the regions.

ishmael whale wrote:

As for goals vital to the future growth of the economy, the most important objective is to keep Ireland in the game at all. If, for example, Trinity College is having trouble even featuring internationally as an ‘also ran’ its fairly clear what GMIT’s Castlebar campus is contributing. We need to keep our eye abroad and make sure that Dublin stays on the global radar. Otherwise the country is gone.

But if the infrastructure is under strain because of over-population then Dublin's ability will be restricted. I see you're also buying into the 'collapse of Dublin' theory that you so eloquently dismissed a few moments ago. The NSS addresses in depth the issue of Dublin in the global context. Having a vibrant Dublin does not have to be at the cost of having run-down regions.

ishmael whale wrote:

I’m sorry, but this is complete fantasy.

No it's not. It's a well documented phenomenon in the history of the state and it is responsible to a large degree for the dependency culture in the regions that you bemoan. The airports situation that you cite is an example of this. The lack of local power in the administration process leads to the farcical situation of everything being routed through central office and round the back door, resulting in everyone getting the short end of the stick.

ishmael whale wrote:

But, on the face of, the CSO data clearly shows that government revenue is chiefly raised in Dublin and the Mid East region, and the West does well out of intra-regional transfers and provision of state services.

That is not disputed. As I said already, it is the reason why this is the case that is important.

ishmael whale

Tuars wrote:

You could argue that the suction effect of Dublin is so great that more resources should be sent west to redress the balance. (I wouldn't argue that, I think it's a problem of policy, I agree with you on this:

I’m mainly interested in getting the point across that the West cannot claim neglect. Clearly we agree on this, and on the need to follow an approach along the lines of the Spatial Strategy – i.e. designate a small number of regional centres for development.

Tuars wrote:

But they are no different to non-Dublin taxpayers in that respect. They gain the benefit in terms of the civil servants salary being fed back into the local economy (it's not all spent on imports, what about services?) and they gain in terms of having a critical mass of local population that is able to sustain a viable community. The non-Dubliner is losing out in this case.

It is simply a fact that Irish domestic consumer spending does little to promote the domestic economy. What we make money out of is producing stuff for export, and what we spend it on we import. That may seem pat and dismissive of using the consumer spending of 10,000 civil servants to stimulate development, but it is simply the situation.

I would query the usefulness of spending money moving Government office staff about in any configuration, especially when we end up paying more for the same service. Even if we move all 10,000 to one other location, all we do is briefly inflate the housing market and maybe move a few retail jobs from hither to dither. So Aldi makes a little less turnover in Blanchardstown and a little more in Cork. That result is not worth much of an investment and, while no-one has calculated the total cost of such a move, for the present programme figures of the order of 900 million and more are being touted around for the building costs alone – never mind retraining, IT etc. This simply amounts to a big investment for no – or negative – return.

Tuars wrote:

Of course there will be relocation costs and if we continue with the proposed implementation there will be higher long term costs. A properly implemented decentralisation programme should not have permanently higher long term costs.

It depends what you mean by ‘properly implemented.’ The offices already decentralised have higher ongoing costs relating to travel and communications, as either transport or technology is required to facilitate contact between people who used to be located in the same building. The only way I can see of reducing these costs is by recentralising.

Tuars wrote:

Decentralisation of departments to Castlebar and Athlone for example have had significant impact on those towns.

I’m not aware of any evidence showing consumer spending relating to decentralised offices makes any impact on the local economy. Castlebar is slap in the middle of Mayo, Ballina is also host to a decentralised office. Yet, as we can see above, Mayo is still a net recipient of state funds.

We’ve already shot the decentralisation bolt. It was a failure too.

Tuars wrote:

Dublin won't collapse but over time the population might stabilise or fall back to European levels (I think Dublin has about a third of the country's population at the moment whereas the European average is somewhere around a fifth for capital cities). That's a goal that is vital to the future growth of the economy.

With respect, this is the kind of thinking that has been used to starve the city of resources, with the result that we’ve all ending up living here but without the infrastructure that we need. Dublin is not a large city, so talk of it ‘falling back to European levels’ is unnecessary.

As for goals vital to the future growth of the economy, the most important objective is to keep Ireland in the game at all. If, for example, Trinity College is having trouble even featuring internationally as an ‘also ran’ its fairly clear what GMIT’s Castlebar campus is contributing. We need to keep our eye abroad and make sure that Dublin stays on the global radar. Otherwise the country is gone.

Tuars wrote:

Maybe so but it's not so clear why. Centralisation of the state apparatus over decades has contributed significantly to making Dublin the profit centre that it is and has also contributed to the west needing so much subsidy.

I’m sorry, but this is complete fantasy. For example, we’ve recently had the revelation that Dublin Airport’s runway was deliberately kept too short to take fully laden cargo aircraft in a blunt attempt to divert traffic to Shannon. In the split up of Aer Rianta it became clear that Dublin Airport has been silently subsidising the other airports for years and is taking over the debt from Shannon and Cork. And we still have the Shannon stopover. All of this is the result of local regional lobbying.

Notwithstanding all this we have to endure a Minister of State welcoming the recent Ryanair deal in Shannon as evidence of what was feasible once the ‘dead hand of Dublin’ was removed.

Let’s think about this. Dublin is constrained by the dead hand of Shannon compelling it to keep its runway so short that some aircraft need to partially unload in Manchester, every second plane from Dublin to the US is hijacked and forced to land in Shannon to cough up a farcical toll and, notwithstanding that, Dublin now has to take on the debt incurred building Shannon’s largely unused passenger terminal while its own bursts at the seams. But a Minister of State is happily able to make a public statement exactly at variance with this reality, and get away with it without question. This is the lack of balance that needs to be redressed.

If someone can show we what in this suggests that Dublin benefited in some manner from being the seat of Government I’d be eternally grateful.

http://www.examiner.ie/pport/web/business/Full_Story/did-sgMgg8tP0fvfwsg7OWirIStPSk.asp

Shannon Airport move the ‘dawning of a new era for tourism in Ireland’
By Jimmy Woulfe and Ian Guider
YESTERDAY’S announcement by Ryanair was described as one of the most important developments in Shannon Airport’s history.

Minister of State Tim O’Malley said the Ryanair development plan will connect Shannon and the west of Ireland to mainland Europe to a far greater level than before. …….. “It is a vindication by those of us who have for years been vigorously advocating independence for Shannon Airport so that the ‘dead hand’ of Dublin could be lifted from Shannon’s decision making.”

Tuars wrote:

Although I might concede that the problem is not the quantity of the state funds but rather the quality of the state policy. It's a problem that seems to be widespread in this government, i.e. more money than sense.

Certainly we can point to a quite a few decisions that involved money being spent for no gain – e voting comes to mind. But, on the face of, the CSO data clearly shows that government revenue is chiefly raised in Dublin and the Mid East region, and the West does well out of intra-regional transfers and provision of state services. This is a simple, but little recognised, reality.

Tuars

ishmael whale wrote:

...considerable resources are devoted to attempting to promote Western development, but they’re not working...

That's a bit of a sweeping statement. They are working in some cases, in others they are not. You could argue that the suction effect of Dublin is so great that more resources should be sent west to redress the balance. (I wouldn't argue that, I think it's a problem of policy, I agree with you on this:

ishmael whale wrote:

If a policy is to be of any value it has to start by addressing the reality that the West’s problem stem from scattering resources all over the place, rather than promoting centralisation within regions – as advocated by the Spatial Strategy analysis.

Agreed. The problem is not decentralisation in principle rather it is this particular implementation.

ishmael whale wrote:

Your conception is simply wrong. Firstly, you will have noted smcarrick’s point that there are significant numbers of public servants located throughout the states.

But in most cases they are scattered too thin to have significant impact as you point out above. Again a problem with impementation rather than principle.

ishmael whale wrote:

Secondly, if Dublin people pay tax that pays the salary of a locally employed civil servant, they aren’t getting a benefit. They’re covering a cost.

But they are no different to non-Dublin taxpayers in that respect. They gain the benefit in terms of the civil servants salary being fed back into the local economy (it's not all spent on imports, what about services?) and they gain in terms of having a critical mass of local population that is able to sustain a viable community. The non-Dubliner is losing out in this case.

ishmael whale wrote:

Relocating these jobs to regional areas will increase costs. That means taxpayers will be carrying a greater cost for the same services.

Of course there will be relocation costs and if we continue with the proposed implementation there will be higher long term costs. A properly implemented decentralisation programme should not have permanently higher long term costs.

ishmael whale wrote:

The concept that fifty civil servants turning up in Kilrush will start some local boom is utter nonsense

I agree and that is the problem with this implementation. But it's a matter of degree. Relocate 500-1000 to a hub town and it will have an impact. Decentralisation of departments to Castlebar and Athlone for example have had significant impact on those towns.

ishmael whale wrote:

– as is the alternative argument that Dublin will collapse if 10,000 salaries are moved elsewhere.

Dublin won't collapse but over time the population might stabilise or fall back to European levels (I think Dublin has about a third of the country's population at the moment whereas the European average is somewhere around a fifth for capital cities). That's a goal that is vital to the future growth of the economy.

ishmael whale wrote:

The essential point – that Dublin is a profit centre and the West requires and receives significant subsidies – is clearly made.

Maybe so but it's not so clear why. Centralisation of the state apparatus over decades has contributed significantly to making Dublin the profit centre that it is and has also contributed to the west needing so much subsidy.

That is why I support decentralisation in principle.

ishmael whale wrote:

A real debate on regional policy is possible once we cross the threshold of accepting that the West’s problems are not caused by lack of state resourcing.

I don't think we're anywhere near crossing that threshold. Although I might concede that the problem is not the quantity of the state funds but rather the quality of the state policy. It's a problem that seems to be widespread in this government, i.e. more money than sense.

ishmael whale

Tuars wrote:

Ishmael's points regarding the west need to be put in that context. The low pupil-teacher ratios, high availability of college places, short commuting times, and lower house prices can largely be attributed to the fact that the local population is constantly migrating to Dublin for work. We need to decentralise the population but we need to do it right….. I think Ishmael's potshots at the west distract from this

I agree that if we aim to promote regional development we need to do it right – and I support decentralisation of power and responsibility to local authorities. However, frequently Western development activists wrongly state their problems to stem from neglect and lack of resourcing. I’m simply redressing the balance and pointing out the reality that considerable resources are devoted to attempting to promote Western development, but they’re not working. Bear in mind that the structure of services you see in place in the West – small schools, regional ITs, regional airports, rails services, grants for industry etc, are the very things that regional activists have campaigned for as what was needed for their areas to address migration.

If a policy is to be of any value it has to start by addressing the reality that the West’s problem stem from scattering resources all over the place, rather than promoting centralisation within regions – as advocated by the Spatial Strategy analysis.

Tuars wrote:

But my point was Dublin benefits more than you are allowing for because of the civil servant wage bill. Did you include this in your figures?

Your conception is simply wrong. Firstly, you will have noted smcarrick’s point that there are significant numbers of public servants located throughout the states. Secondly, if Dublin people pay tax that pays the salary of a locally employed civil servant, they aren’t getting a benefit. They’re covering a cost. Relocating these jobs to regional areas will increase costs. That means taxpayers will be carrying a greater cost for the same services.

You also have to understand (and this is not controversial among economists) that Irish domestic consumer spending does little to stimulate the Irish economy, because the consumer goods we buy are mostly imported [This is not an attempt to advocate some import substitution gig – we can import this stuff cheaper than we can make it]. The concept that fifty civil servants turning up in Kilrush will start some local boom is utter nonsense – as is the alternative argument that Dublin will collapse if 10,000 salaries are moved elsewhere.

Victor wrote:

Such a comparison may be erroneous as for example Bank of Ireland will be contributing to the Dublin figure exclusively, because it's headquarters is in Dublin, whereas (presumably) it makes money throughout the country.[/Victor]

You are right to point out that conceptual problems exist when you attempt to break figures down by county. As I understand it the CSO data attempts to break income etc. down by household location. For example, the high figures for Kildare probably includes people who work in Dublin and return home every night.

The essential point – that Dublin is a profit centre and the West requires and receives significant subsidies – is clearly made. A real debate on regional policy is possible once we cross the threshold of accepting that the West’s problems are not caused by lack of state resourcing.

NewDubliner

Victor wrote:

http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/front/2004/1203/2488917830HM1HENNESSY.html

I think it's both amazing and disturbing that the costs of the relocation plan are only being estimated in terms of acquiring office accomodation & fitting it out

What about the cost of retraining staff and the loss of productivity, not to mention the effect on the morale of the remainaing staff?

In IT, the 'people cost' is always higher than the cost of the hardware, so I guess that the overall cost of the relocation will be huge.

Victor

http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/front/2004/1203/2488917830HM1HENNESSY.html

Decentralisation cost to rise sharply, Budget data show
Mark Hennessy, Political Correspondent

The costs of the Government's plan to move 10,500 civil servants out of Dublin have escalated sharply, according to Department of Finance documents released on Budget day.

The Office of Public Works will spend €900 million on new offices for civil servants over the next four years even though just 3,500 officials will move by the end of 2008, rather than the 10,500 originally due to go by the end of 2007

Victor

ishmael whale wrote:

If the good Councillor is looking for something to sell to the people of Mayo, he could start by pointing out that in 2001 Mayo households paid €315 million in tax, but received €356 million in various income supports. This means that, in the swings and roundabouts, Mayo households receive a net €820 in income supports per person. By contrast, Dublin households contribute a net €2,000 in tax per head, and the rest of the Mid East isn’t far behind.

Such a comparison may be erroneous as for example Bank of Ireland will be contributing to the Dublin figure exclusively, because it's headquarters is in Dublin, whereas (presumably) it makes money throughout the country.

Just for the people saying that Charlie was out to make money on stamp duty, how do you reconcile that with Brians budget? http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=206698

The_Conductor

Hmmm- McCreevy obviously never raided the PAC archives.....

The_Conductor

Also- here is a Public Accounts Committee Assessment of the effects of previous decentralisation programmes of the 1990s here-

DECENTRALISATION EXPERIENCES - SUMMARY

Common Experiences

· overall experience was positive, though it required considerable planning and control

· turnover of staff in work areas being decentralised in many cases is in excess of 90 per cent, with consequential disruption and implications for loss of corporate experience

· as many as twice the number of staffing being decentralised had to transfer (internally and externally) to accommodate the relocation

· high turnover of staff since decentralisation

· desirability/necessity of staff overlap, with obvious resource implications

· desirability of additional resources in areas such as training, personnel and accommodation during the planning/execution phase

· enhanced/improvement accommodation and facilities was plus

· opportunity to introduce new/improved work practices or accelerate change management processes

· some initial loss of customer service and some effect on output and effectiveness

· capacity to deal with urgent short-term demands, through the temporary transfer of staff, is seriously curtailed

Lessons

· impact on staff left behind - may be demoralised, arrangements need to be in place to deal with (any) surpluses, attention and time needed for dealing with their redeployment

· communications - needs to be effective and constant with significant input

· size of office - a decentralised office should be of sufficient size to allow for reasonable staff development, mobility and motivation; it should provide a viable carer pyramid for staff with scope for lateral mobility; the perceived lack of promotion outlets, after the initial phase, can give rise to discontent; there is limited practical value in mobility where there is little or no variety in work; there should be an emphasis on achieving a critical mass of staff in each decentralisation location

· planning - there needs to be extensive preliminary planning involving significant input from management; full assessment of the impacts on customers/users/business/industry - BPR exercises, staff/management restructuring, IT changes etc. to be completed well in advance of moving - establish a project team with a project plan and ensure regular communications

· IT - ensure that a robust IT infrastructure is in place

· HR issues - consider constraints to prevent staff from transferring interdepartmentally soon after assimilation and training; expedite filling of vacancies at clerical level; new recruitment practices required for decentralised locations; specialised technical/professional skills are in short supply in current economic climate; single decentralised location or clustering of locations for any Department would facilitate career paths; regional promotion structures

· Implementation - phasing of staff movements can greatly help in smooth implementation; transfer of functions and staff should be achieved in shortest time-scale possible, consistent with business needs

· Costs - apart from the associated with the provision of accommodation, additional costs are likely to arise to additional staff resources, training, overtime, T& S

· E-Government - proposals should be cognisant of developments in this regard.

The_Conductor

Tuars wrote:

But my point was Dublin benefits more than you are allowing for because of the civil servant wage bill. Did you include this in your figures?

You might like to take the following onboard:

In December 1999, it was announced in the Budget 2000 Speech the intention to proceed with a new programme of decentralisation involving up to 10,000 civil and public servants. This represented a significant extension on the previous programme of decentralisation, which commenced in 1987 and continued through to the 1990s. That programme had involved the relocation of some 4,000 civil service posts to 20 centres in 19 counties, as detailed in the appendix to this document. As a result of that programme, almost half of the numbers (some 14,000) then serving in the civil service were located outside Dublin.

The 2003 announcement should be viewed in the context of overall public service numbers (276,000 in total), which comprise at present 96,000 in the health area, 77,000 in education, 34,000 in local authorities and 12,000, 11,000 and 9,000 in the Defence Forces, Garda Siochana and non-commercial State Bodies, respectively, along with 37,000 in the civil service.

Approximately, half the civil service are located outside Dublin already. In addition, given the nature of the services provided, it follows that a very large proportion of health workers, teachers, local authority employees, and Defence and Garda personnel are located outside Dublin. For example, in the health area, no less than 58,000 personnel serve in Health Boards other than the Eastern Regional Health Authority, while 7,000 Garda personnel are located outside the Dublin Metropolitan area.

Centralisation as you are alluding to, is but a falacy.

Re: wagebill- while impossible to certify the effect the measure may have on the Dublin it may be surmised that the proposed decentralisation would remove 1.2billion in direct spending power power, along with an indeterminate sum in downstream spending power.

This would not be a direct transfer of 1.2 billion to the regions- as its estimated that many two partner or multiple earner households would not be able to find similar employment opportunities in their proposed decentralisation locations.

All-in-all- the decentralisation programme is proported to be a net drain on the exchequer for the next 22 year, up to 2026- before eventually breaking even.

Quite simply- the sums do not add up.

The electorate have been sold a pup by the government.

Tuars

ishmael whale wrote:

The key point is that little recognition is given to the fact that costs of government are chiefly carried by Dublin, just as little recognition is given to the extent that resources are traditionally diverted from Dublin and invested in regional areas.

But my point was Dublin benefits more than you are allowing for because of the civil servant wage bill. Did you include this in your figures?

Tuars

smccarrick wrote:

You could go around in a massive circle here......

More of a spiral than a circle. Without intervention centralisation begets more centralisation.

Ishmael's points regarding the west need to be put in that context. The low pupil-teacher ratios, high availability of college places, short commuting times, and lower house prices can largely be attributed to the fact that the local population is constantly migrating to Dublin for work.

BTW I'm opposed to the proposed decentralisation but not to decentralisation in principle. We need to decentralise the population but we need to do it right. I think Ishmael's potshots at the west distract from this.

ishmael whale

smccarrick wrote:

how about offsetting the work done by Dublin based civil servants against any assistance they render non-Dublin based citizens...

That’s about the size of it.

The key point is that little recognition is given to the fact that costs of government are chiefly carried by Dublin, just as little recognition is given to the extent that resources are traditionally diverted from Dublin and invested in regional areas.

The_Conductor

Tuars wrote:

Just wondering if you've offset the Dublin contribution against the wage bill for Dublin based civil servants?

In that case- how about offsetting the work done by Dublin based civil servants against any assistance they render non-Dublin based citizens........

You could go around in a massive circle here......

Tuars

ishmael whale wrote:

Mayo households receive a net €820 in income supports per person. By contrast, Dublin households contribute a net €2,000 in tax per head, and the rest of the Mid East isn’t far behind.

ishmael whale wrote:

Waterford’s total contribution of €49 million is dwarfed by Dublin’s €2,221 million

Just wondering if you've offset the Dublin contribution against the wage bill for Dublin based civil servants?

ishmael whale

This is article is a little disappointing, as I can remember reading reasonably sensible stuff in Waterford local media to the effect of what use was an office full of civil servants when what they were really campaigning for was a radiotherapy unit.

Waterford households are also a net contributor to the public finances, to the tune of about €1075 net tax per head. While only half of the average Dublin contribution and while Waterford’s total contribution of €49 million is dwarfed by Dublin’s €2,221 million, perhaps if he was aware that they are net contributors the writer of this editorial might see a better use for this money than relocating some office staff.

http://www.waterford-today.ie/index.php?id=12555&what=2&issue=228

Editorial - Decentralisation setback for Waterford
The roll-out by the Government of their decentralisation plans last week is a major blow to the aspirations of Waterford City and County. The pledge of 500 jobs plus is just another in a litany of broken promises made by this administration to the constituency. The verbal savaging of Fianna Fail T.D., Ollie Wilkinson on local radio is indicative of the fury the public feel about this issue. ……. However, the announcement by the Government last Monday which completely ignored Waterford has rankled with many people. Even the national press has singled out Martin Cullen, Minister for Transport for special mention in this regard and commented that the announcement was a political set-back for the Minister. ……... Certainly as far as Waterford is concerned, there will be no decentralisation before the next General Election due in just over two years time. ……….

NewDubliner

‘CHEATED’ is how Fianna Fail councillor in Claremorris, Pat McHugh feels, following the announcement of the government’s decentralisation plans last week. Fifteen locations around the country were identified as top priorities for decentralisation with neither of the two Mayo locations (Claremorris and Knock Airport) featuring on this list

Have a heart, the poor man just wanted a few cuddly civil servants to give his constituents for Christmas.....;-)

ishmael whale

If the good Councillor is looking for something to sell to the people of Mayo, he could start by pointing out that in 2001 Mayo households paid €315 million in tax, but received €356 million in various income supports. This means that, in the swings and roundabouts, Mayo households receive a net €820 in income supports per person. By contrast, Dublin households contribute a net €2,000 in tax per head, and the rest of the Mid East isn’t far behind.

Other points that might be sold include the €3.2 million subsidy paid out every year to keep Knock Airport going, and the undisclosed amount spent keeping the Westport/Ballina railway open. An educationally minded Councillor might comment on how primary schools in Mayo have a ratio of 17.4 pupils per teacher, as against 19.5 per teacher in Dublin. He might add how the GMIT Castlebar campus is unique among non-private sector colleges in that, according to the CAO, six of its eight Diploma/Certificate course are open to anyone who turns up with a leaving cert, because there’s so little demand for places.

So, just off the top of the head, there seems to be plenty for Councillors to sell on the doorstep around Mayo without the need to advocate dismembering central government.

http://www.mayonews.ie/current/news.tmpl$showpage?value1=3310889577167759

Claremorris ‘let down’ and ‘cheated’
Elisha Commins
elishacommins@mayonews.ie
‘CHEATED’ is how Fianna Fail councillor in Claremorris, Pat McHugh feels, following the announcement of the government’s decentralisation plans last week. Fifteen locations around the country were identified as top priorities for decentralisation with neither of the two Mayo locations (Claremorris and Knock Airport) featuring on this list, contrary to expectations and assurances given to public representatives. ……………………"As a Fianna Fail councillor, you go out and sell this idea to people but I will certainly be asking very serious questions at the next Fianna Fail party meeting," Cllr. McHugh said this week. ………”

gazzer

Yeah i saw that revenue circular yesterday as well... not that i am eligible for the promotion or anything... i'd say from now on that clause is going to be on all competitions.

NewDubliner

Anyone see Revenue's circular for internal promotion to AP?

There's a reference in it to eligibility being based on a willingness to move to 'specified locations'.

What would they be now?

The_Conductor

Don't think I saw this press release from our press office anywhere? The bit about Decentralisation not breaking even until 2026 is interesting. Hmmmm- one thing decentralisation is teaching all of us- is to be accomplished at reading between the lines.......

S.

ishmael whale

The WDC are now professionally engaged in the business of reality denial.
There essential logic seems to be that people should want to flock West because property is cheaper, skipping over the question that higher prices in Dublin suggests that, on balance, it’s a more attractive place to live. [I’m assuming that we can take it that what Eamon Ó Cuív, T.D.calls “a much richer cultural life” might be called inane boredom by others.]
In their anxiety to attract people they point out that “for those planning on setting up their own business, big or small, the level of state aid available to businesses within the WDC area is considerably more attractive than that available around Dublin.”, state that commuting times are shorter and note that the region can be accessed by two international airports. Can we take this to mean they’ll stop suggesting that the West is neglected, and accept they have been given a generous share of available resources ?
On the lookwest.ie website they’re happy to boast about the low pupil teacher ratio in primary schools. Would they like to acknowledge that this is paid for by the enormous class sizes experienced in the main cities? Who do they think is paying for all this? Do they really think that people in Dublin should continue to shell out so that the West can live out some sort of mock rural fantasy?
http://www.wdc.ie/news.asp?id=80
www.lookwest.ie
Look West Initiative

29 November 2004
“Living in the West can give you 16 extra hours a week to enjoy”

“Much shorter commuting and 50% cheaper housing make compelling case to Look West”

Monday 29th November 2004

“People who live within the commuter belts around the greater Dublin region can spend up to 20 hours a week commuting, while the average commute in the Western region is around 4 hours a week, and often much less than that” according to Dr. Pat O’Hara, Policy Manager, of the Western Development Commission (WDC). She added, “Choosing to live in the West can give you up to sixteen hours extra in a week to enjoy a much higher quality of life. When you consider that housing costs here can be as much as 50% lower, there is a compelling case for people to Look West.” Dr. O’Hara was speaking at the launch today (Mon 29th November 2004) of the Look West initiative by the WDC, aimed at attracting people to move from Dublin and surrounding counties to the seven western counties – from Donegal to Clare – in the WDC region……………..
Welcoming the Look West initiative, Éamon Ó Cuív, T.D., Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs, said, "There has been an awful lot of misinformation in the media surrounding decentralisation and the implied hardships that it would bring. The facts speak for themselves. People who choose to relocate from the greater Dublin area can have a super quality of life, across the board, from being able to afford better housing, cheaper food and drink, having a sense of space, not spending what appears to be their entire lives in traffic and of course a much richer cultural life……….

The Look West initiative includes billboard advertising on the main Dublin commuter routes with a tag line urging commuters to ‘Look West for a less stressful life’ or ‘Look West for more affordable living’. Radio ads will be broadcast during rush-hour traffic and a website, www.lookwest.ie gives the many benefits of moving west and comprehensive information on housing, schooling, culture and social life.

FOR FURTHER DETAILS PLEASE CONTACT
For further information please contact
Conall O Morain, The Media Group, 01 – 2755975 or 0872 463 111
Or Dr. Pat O’Hara, Western Development Commission, 087 686 2772

uncivilservant

Dinarius wrote:

I hope and pray the the Laois/Offaly electorate remembers Parlon as Mary O'Rourke was remembered after the Eircom debacle.

Hardly fair to single out Rawhide now, is it?

http://www.rte.ie/news/oireachtas/tds/parlont.html
http://www.rte.ie/news/oireachtas/tds/cowenb.html

Dinarius

"For example will highly experienced IT staff who do not want to got to Kildare or Portlaoise be allowed to defect to Kilrush, Listowel or even Clonakilty?"

Which is in effect asking if, for example, an employment specialist currently working with FAS can instead work as a marine biologist in Clon? It just gets crazier and crazier!

I would lay odds that if that fool didn't have state bodies allocated to his constituency, they would have been left alone.

D.

NewDubliner

Dinarius wrote:

uncivilservant,
As for Parlon forcing the issue of FAS to Birr. The is even worse. Six acceptances. Three hunderd and ninety two required. What does that arrogant fool think he's going to do?
D.

Parlon was challenged about the Fas numbers in a radio interview, his answers were:

1: The unions had told the Fas staff not to cooperate. (Implying that many staff want to go to Birr but the nasty unions won't let them....)

2: Fas had many offices around the country from which volunteers would be found. (In other words, he wants to re-centralise Fas in Birr......)

I think that the phasing of the moves opens issues for staff who want to move but not with their own departments. Will they be allowed to move in the first phase if their own jobs are in the second phase? For example will highly experienced IT staff who do not want to got to Kildare or Portlaoise be allowed to defect to Kilrush, Listowel or even Clonakilty? Or, perhaps will they be forced to remain in Dublin to train in their replacements before being thrown on the scrap-heap when their work is moved?

Dinarius

uncivilservant,

You're being ironic when you ask who the TD for Laois/Offaly is, aren't you? ;-)

Seriously, whatever one might say about the rights and wrongs of decentralisation of civil servants, it is truly stupefying that they havn't rolled back on the decentralisation of Public Servants. This is sheer madness.

e.g. In the case of BIM to Clonakilty, are they going to go into the jobs market and find 93 marine biologists and the like to replace the 93, currently in Dun Laoghaire, who have no intention of going anywhere?

As for Parlon forcing the issue of FAS to Birr. The is even worse. Six acceptances. Three hunderd and ninety two required. What does that arrogant fool think he's going to do?

Just heard him on Saturday View. He couldn't handle the issues at all. Kept referring to Fine Gael's record on various, irrelevant, issues.

In addition to not forcing the Public Servants, they should also have stuck with towns based on expressions of interest. The effect of this would have been twofold;

1. Parlon would have had to concede Birr......at least!

2. Thurles (oversubscribed) would have been included. But, hang on a second........Thurles is no longer represented at the cabinet table since Michael Smith's demise. Hhhhhmmmm.........so, no surprise there then.

It is beyond credibility that Flynn, a former trade unionist, would recommend forcing through the issue of the State Bodies. Equally, the inclusion of towns that no one wants to move to. This is classic Pontius Pilate politics. Get a mouthpiece to say it for you. That way you can blame him/her, while still having it your own way.

This has nothing to do with the common good and everything to do with FF/DP venality.

I hope and pray the the Laois/Offaly electorate remembers Parlon as Mary O'Rourke was remembered after the Eircom debacle.

D.

NewDubliner

it is not clear at this stage the extent (if any) to which of the staff centres / data centres will be used by the Government Departments and Agencies, other than the Dept of Agriculture, DSFA, Revenue, LGSB, Reach and CMOD.

It's amazing that it's implied that any department will use the staff or data centres.

There are not many qualified or experienced volunteers. Given the locations,the uncertainty & the pitiful salaries, I think few dynamic, talented IT people will give a thought to joining CMOD's pipeline of succession.

It is far more likely that they'll leave the existing IT staff to wither on the vine & continue to increase the outsourcing as has been done by stealth for the past 10 years.

uncivilservant

NewDubliner wrote:

The bit in the Flynn report about 'pipelining' staff in the ICT areas was amusing. They have no idea what's going on.

RTE's 9pm news raised the often hidden issue of cost & the fuzzy thinking about it.

The bottom line is they honestly don't know. Deloitte's report specifically says this:

2.4 ICT
The Decentralisation Programme is likely to give rise to upfront ICT costs for
example, the cost of setting up and testing the IT environment in the new locations; additional network equipment (servers, desktop PCs); additional
telecommunications equipment etc.

However we understand that the operating model for ICT services provided to
decentralising organisations has not been finalised. Although it has been decided to establish three ICT staff centres in Portlaosie, Drogheda and Kildare (and two data centres to house the equipment) it is not clear at this stage the extent (if any) to which of the staff centres / data centres will be used by the Government Departments and Agencies, other than the Dept of Agriculture, DSFA, Revenue, LGSB, Reach and CMOD.

Clearly this could have a significant impact on the overall provision of ICT services for decentralising organisations and the steps required to transition to this model.

Given the lack of clarity on the ICT operating model at this stage it was not possible to consider potential ICT costs / savings. We recommend that a separate exercise be carried out when the ICT strategy for decentralising Departments / Agencies is clarified.

NewDubliner

The bit in the Flynn report about 'pipelining' staff in the ICT areas was amusing. They have no idea what's going on.

RTE's 9pm news raised the often hidden issue of cost & the fuzzy thinking about it.

Another issue that comes to mind is that those working in the offices marked with the black spot of relocation & which are not moving soon, could find promotion blocked unless they agree to leave Dublin, even if the date has not been set and is unlikely to be for many years.

Watch out too for the barbs. If the 150 Revenue jobs in Listowel, Newcastlewest etc are filled from Limerick as is very likely, the Government intends to suppress the equivalent number of jobs in Dublin.

uncivilservant

BolBill some time ago wrote:

5. The buildings outside of Dublin that the Depts are moving to will be generally owed by TDs themselves or associates of TDs hence somebody makes a lot of money from leasing out these buildings.

I just happened across this article:

The article, published in Ireland on Sunday on July 25, highlighted links between Deputy Parlon, his adviser Matt Moore and Mr Moore’s brother, builder Pat Moore in relation to a business opportunity presented by government plans for decentralisation.

Mr Pat Moore is planning to provide office space for some 110 civil servants who are to be decentralised to Portarlington.

Tom Parlon, who claimed much of the credit for the decentralisation of civil service jobs to Laois, is now in charge of securing property for the programme itself.

As Pat Moore is the brother of Mr Parlon’s adviser Matt Moore, questions have been raised about the transparency of the property deals.

http://archives.tcm.ie/laoisnationalist/2004/08/05/story17608.asp