Politics: If it is not unusual for governments to break their promises, such promises are rarely broken in advance of an election. This is already happening, however, in the decentralisation process, writes Arthur Beesley
Charlie McCreevy is still insisting that the programme to move more than 10,000 civil and public servants from Dublin will be delivered in its entirety over the next three years. The Minister for Finance is also insisting that the programme will be completely voluntary.
But Mr McCreevy has already turned his back on the second of these commitments. Until this September at least, offers for all promotional posts in the bodies to move from Dublin will be conditional on agreement by the appointee to relocate. You won't get the job if you don't want to move.
Such a condition was signalled 10 days ago in the report of the decentralisation implementation group chaired by Mr Phil Flynn. It introduces an element of coercion into the programme by excluding workers who wish to remain in Dublin from promotional opportunities.
This is blatantly unfair on people who may have given years of loyal service to a Department or public body. It is also against the interests of Mr McCreevy's own demands for efficiency from the public service. For if the measure goes ahead - and the Government has accepted the Flynn report - the best candidates for jobs will be out of the loop if they wish to remain in Dublin. Ability will no longer be the determining factor.
Not so long ago, when the boom was at its height, the Government worried that talented people were more likely to seek high-paid work in the private sector. Now the most talented people will be kept down if they have no wish to leave Dublin.
This is the Realpolitik of a decentralisation programme that is awash with double-speak and spin. The objective of voluntarily wooing 10,000 staff from Dublin was never achievable, so something had to give.
Still, the Government claims no element of the programme will be reconsidered or omitted.
But the conditionality of promotions shows that this has already begun. With the Government intent on moving thousands of employees from Dublin, there is every possibility that the measure will be continued past September.
None of this is entirely surprising. From the Government's perspective, it is crucial to be seen to make headway on the project before the local and European elections in June. So from early May civil and public servants in the relevant bodies will be asked to state their preferences for the available locations, on a scale from one to 10.
All very well, but they will not be allowed express a preference to remain in Dublin. Again, this is highly unfair.
Despite the denials, the initiative has all the marks of a Government electioneering stunt.
Remember the "Parlon country" posters. Remember Fianna Fáil's envy at the same posters. Fearful of a backlash if any area was ruled out from decentralisation, the Cabinet chose 53 locations for the programme. Cream cake for everyone in the audience. Everyone.
We see this all the time, the most recent example being moves by Micheál Martin to flout his very own hospital policy in Ennis and Nenagh.
There is nothing wrong with decentralisation per se. Well managed, such a policy could bring opportunities for economic revival in areas forgotten in the boom times. But the scale of the targets carries with it the seeds of massive disruption in an administration not known for spontaneous precision.
It is 10 years since the Civil Service adopted a strategic management initiative designed to introduce more effective administration and improve services to the Government and the public. It was a landmark, long-term programme, but one which has not yet been finished. This followed separate unsuccessful efforts at Civil Service reform in the 1980s and 1970s.
Now Mr McCreevy wants to take the "central" from major parts of central Government. While eight Departments are to move from the capital, surveys conducted to date indicate that most staff have no interest in going, and those that do tend to work at lower grades.
The stock reponse to this is that staff surveys are useless because civil servants would only indicate willingness to go if they were sure the move was on. Yet if the system is, after all, voluntary, workers won't go if they don't want to go.
In addition, the first Flynn report has very little to say about the downsides from the perspective of knowledge management, customer service and collaboration between organisations.
For example, the report said "Preserving organisational memory will be a key factor in preparing for and implementing decentralisation". While referring to the the storage of corporate knowledge on computer systems, it had nothing to say about simple knowhow picked up in office chit-chat.
Simlarly, the report said relocation will provide opportunities "to examine service delivery in a very fundamental way". While noting that many customers of Government services "may prefer" to access services by remote technology, there was no mention of those who might have a preference for a face-to-face meeting with an official.
All this does not suggest that the entire plan is about to split its seams. But it is clear that the Government has a long way to go before moving to push ahead with the plan in its entirety. While significant costs will inevitably arise, they have not yet been quantified, and there is no sign of a cost-benefit analysis.
Mr McCreevy has been at pains to characterise the initiative as a gilded opportunity for civil and public servants to escape the gridlock of Dublin and cash in on the property boom. He chooses not to apportion blame for the gridlock, which is a legacy of poor Government planning and, we now know, corruption in the planning process.
He presents the project as a win-win affair. It is much more complex than that.