Mr McCreevy gave his ministerial colleagues strict instructions almost a year ago to earmark sections of their Departments very quickly for moves outside Dublin.
The speaking note he used at Cabinet, released under the Freedom of Information Act, made the urgency clear.
"I want Ministers to do this very quickly and come back to me directly with very definite proposals or a range of hard possibilities within a fortnight," he said to the meeting. It is believed to have taken place last February. "This will enable me to bring to Government a comprehensive memorandum on the issue within the next few months so that whatever arrangements we agree on can be put in train before the summer holidays."
By that time, he said, the Government would be "almost three years in office and it will be necessary to get things under way at that stage if we are to show visible progress before the election."
Of course nothing got under way at that stage, or in the six months since then. The avalanche of representations from politicians on behalf of 80 towns around the State soon mired the decentralisation process.
It is now over a year since Mr McCreevy announced his intentions and no decisions have been made on how to implement his plan.
One reason for the delay is the concerns of civil service unions, who wish to ensure jobs are decentralised only to places civil servants want to live. However, the main reason is political: by announcing the 30 or so locations to benefit from decentralisation, the Government will be disappointing some 50 other towns.
Government backbenchers would face into a general election in the next 18 months explaining their failure to deliver.
Of course, Mr McCreevy's plan was not based on local considerations but on two national policy imperatives: the need to rejuvenate towns outside Dublin and the need to take pressure off Dublin's creaking infrastructure.
The plan was very ambitious. He told his colleagues that some 15,500 civil servants were based in Dublin, with 14,000 outside it. While previous decentralisations had typically seen groups of 200 to 300 from a Department going to a single location, this time he said: "My target on this occasion is a serious multiplier of this figure."
His intention, he indicated, was to move some 10,000 further public service jobs outside Dublin. These would be from both the civil service and non-commercial, State-sponsored bodies. He estimated it would take up to three years between decisions being taken and the first staff moving.
Yet faced with the political difficulties, Mr McCreevy's advisers are now urging a politically-safe approach, albeit one which would reduce the ambition of the decentralisation programme.
Some moves to a number of towns should be announced, according to this advice, together with a promise of more to come.
This would allow the Minister and the Government to get political credit from the locations receiving civil service offices and Departments, while avoiding forcing his backbenchers in unsuccessful towns to face angry voters. While some towns would be successful, none would officially be turned down.
The Cabinet sub-committee dealing with the issue is to meet again shortly. Mr McCreevy has held bilateral meetings with all of his Ministers and has also consulted civil service unions a number of times.
Documentation released to The Irish Times under the Freedom of Information Act gives an indication as to the level of political pressure put on the Minister by fellow politicians.
For example last March, the documents reveal, the Taoiseach's brother, Mr Noel Ahern TD, proposed at a Fianna Fail parliamentary party meeting that some disadvantaged suburban areas in Dublin be considered for decentralisation. In a handwritten note left on the Department of Finance file, Mr McCreevy notes this case was "well put" at the meeting.
In later correspondence he says that moving Government offices to disadvantaged Dublin suburbs "would not be decentralisation". Nevertheless, he says, it should not be excluded as a possibility, and could help the development or image of those suburbs.
The documentation also shows that Mr McCreevy was determined to have quick decisions earlier in the year, but was thwarted by the volume of representations to be dealt with. In April, for example, Mr McCreevy asked the Minister for the Environment, Mr Dempsey, for information on towns to enable him to assess how well able they would be to absorb an influx of decentralised civil servants. He sought information as to their housing stock, road network, serviced land, telecom links, education, health and sports facilities.
"Another issue that arises is that of towns near the greater Dublin area, such as Drogheda or Wicklow," he said. "They should, I think, be covered in the exercise."
Internal notes in May show it was still Mr McCreevy's intention to bring proposals to Government in July. On May 19th, he wrote to Mr Dempsey: "I aim to reach conclusions in July in order to present proposals to the Government for decision before the end of that month."
His plan was quite specific. To formulate proposals in early July; to get Environment advice on feasibility; then to put them to Government.
On May 9th, the Government decided to set up a Cabinet subcommittee on decentralisation, to be chaired by Mr McCreevy. It was to discuss specific decentralisation proposals with all Ministers. Initially it comprised Mr McCreevy, the Taoiseach and the Tanaiste, but in September Mr Dempsey also joined.
As late as June 2000, a note in the Department's files states that the sub-committee was on course for a July decision. However, the Cabinet meeting of July 24th - the last before the summer break - postponed a decision until the autumn.
In October, Mr McCreevy told the Dail that decisions would be announced by the end of 2000, a line repeated on a number of occasions. Mr McCreevy had another round of consultations with the public service unions. However, several weeks before the budget in early December, political activity on the matter appeared to cease.