Head over to our T-Shirt shop for the latest designs including Conor Lenihan's memorable performance on Vincent Browne.
Read more about: Uncategorized 
It’s been announced that “An Bord Snip Nua” will report tomorrow on its proposed reductions in public expenditure and increases in public revenue. The report will go to the Minister for Finance. There is no indication of when a public version of the report will be made available.
Post a comment below:
It was the ECB wot done it: Dick Roche takes the Fianna Fail defence to the pages of the Wall Street Journal Europe.
IRA members seek US Medicaid assistance? Only in conservative prank video.
HSBC to pay $US63 million compensation to investors in light-touch regulated Irish investment fund linked to Bernie Madoff.
Saudi Arabia thinks Batt O’Keeffe is still Minister for Enterprise (as of 15:50, 20 April) not Richard Bruton.
“When I am on holiday, I am not foreign minister.” It’s not just Ireland where ministers have blind spots about their connections.
“a public version”?
The full report, as presented to the Minister for Finance, must be made available to the public, immediately.
After, we are paying all the people involved in preparing the report and in making decisions arising from the report. The way this report is receivedwhich will have effects for all of us, either in terms of reduced payments and services, unemployment, higher “service” charges, fees and taxes.
The secrecy so-beloved of bureaucrats (in all sectors) can lead to bad management, inefficiency, abuse of position and corruption – pick your own examples from what has been going on in this country for years.
We have had enough of power being exercised here by people who like to act in whimsical and arbitrary ways. Without seeing the full report, how can we, citizens, be sure that the same low standards do not continue to exist in high places?
It is no longer enough for the powers-that-be and their advisers to say “Trust us”. As an Arab proverb puts it, “Trust in God, but tie your camel”
Colm McCarthy, the Chairman of the Review Group on Public Expenditure and Public Service numbers does not strike me as a person who is afraid to present his views in public. This is the second time in about 30 years that he, an outsider, has been asked to do the same job.
This shows that our government system has learnt very little in the intervening period. It suggests incompetence in either drawing up procedures and processes to control expenditure or in their application in a consistent and systematic way or both – in short, inertia.
Our Government system displays a chronic tendency to levels of public expenditure, not matched by revenues raised by taxation. This leads to borrowing for current cost purposes that is unsustainable. This suggests that the government lacks the capacity to control itself.
Secrecy allows our government to put and maintain a higher value on grand gestures rather in quiet competence.
Publishing the report before the Cabinet have had time to digest its contents and make decisions on how to move forward amounts to gesture politics and would be highly irresponsible.
McCarthy and his colleagues are setting out a menu, not telling the Cabinet what to eat. Looking at the headlines in today’s Indo should be enough to persuade Ministers to publish the report only after all the political decisions on its implementation, in whole or in part, have been agreed.
Finding savings and cuts amounting to 5bn euro is no mean feat. Obviously some of the decisions recommended in this report will be politically unpalatable and probably publicly unacceptable to the general population as well as to powerful vested interest groups. For example, Peter McLoone nailed the public service unions’ colours to the mast on “The Week in Politics” on Sunday last when he stated: “There’s not going to be any agreement with us that requires our membership to take further cuts in pay.”
Nor will the unions, or their political cheerleaders, accept any cuts in public services, or any breach of the principle of ‘universality’ in state support payments like child benefit, thrid level fees and so on. On the same programme, Labour’s Joan Burton suggested that any alteration to the current child benefit payment “will break up families” and that the biggest danger attaching to the Bord Snip recommendations will be the creation of “poverty traps.” If the Government were to publish the report in full immediately, you can be pretty sure the number of broken up families and potential poverty traps will have increased exponentially by the end of the summer.
From the leaks so far – and right now we’re only getting a few drips – one of the more interesting facets of this report is the seismic shakeup it apparently recommends in the structure of government departments. The final decision on this will rest with the Taoiseach and logically comes after the series of decisions on what cuts will be made, and where, in time for the next Budget in December, which will dictate what shape of administration is required to implement the public finances strategy. It’s entirely his political decision as to how far he will go in altering the structure of his administration to meet the requirements of finding the best way forward. Allowing a media frenzy to develop around any template suggested in the Bord Snip report, which would invariably settle on ‘personality’ issues, would be the height of political stupidity at this stage of the game.
In the meantime, the government has to get the framework for NAMA agreed and get the agency up and running; agree a new deal with the Greens to keep them on board and then there’s the second referendum on Lisbon in October. To have interest groups, the opposition parties, and even their own backbenchers or ‘at risk’ ministers filleting the report for items on which to hold the Taoiseach to ransom for their ‘support’ for Lisbon II is hardly an appealing prospect.
The counterargument to all this is that publication of the report is about transparency in government and allowing the public (and the media) to make up their minds on what needs to be done and how we should go about
it. The whole thing doesn’t have to be done at once and doubtless some of the recommendations might be better rolled out over a period of years, not immediately, though that is how the media in general and the opposition parties would most likely want to portray the report. Publishing the report would thus amount to a gigantic exercise in public consultation, absolving the Cabinet of having to make any tough decisions and providing plenty of excuses to them for not doing anything that might upset one group or another on the grounds that ‘the public won’t wear it.’ If that’s the case, what do we need a government for?
Word is that this wont be coming out officially any time soon, unfortunately.
I don’t have too much of a problem with the cabinet being given some time to consider the report before it is made public.
What they must do is publish the report in full a decent period (2/3 weeks) before they make their final decisions about what to do. And when they do make decisions they need to justify them on measurable. If for example they decided against means testing or taxing child benefit on the grounds that it would cost more to do than it would save then they must show how much it would cost, who told them this and by what logic they arrived at this number. Far too often we, as members of the public, are told X would cost too much or Y will save millions but not given the raw data to see that for ourselves. And a lot of the time it costs more than expected or the cost was inflated for bizarre reasons.
@Veronica
I am afraid that I regard media frenzy arising from spins and leaks as a form of gesture politics, not the quiet competence that I expect from good government.
I start from an observation attributed to Pericles of Athens (not reading Greek, I rely on some translatin or other) “Although only a few may originate a policy, we are all able to judge it”
Note that in other areas of public life, presentation of the options considered is mandatory, before setting out in detail the preferred option. I refer to what goes into an Environmental Impact Statement that must be presented for most significant development proposals, as part of a planning application.
Of course, those opposing the McCarthy Review Group’s proposals, in whole or in part, are going to voice their concerns and objections, vociferously. But that is democratic politics.
If those who sought power to make the decisions do not like such frenzy, why did they enter politics? IMO, it is better to have a frenzy when one knows the full set of options on the menu rather than be subject to selective dissemination of information.
Publishing the full set of the McCarthy Review Group’s proposals does not necessarily mean a public consultation in a formal way. But how bad is a public consultation anyway?
Just because the public has been informed or consulted does not mean that decisions can be deferred or not taken in a timely way. No excuse for inertia on these matters now.
The hole we are demands that we change how we do things. Why not start now?
Colm McCarthy does not strike me as a person who is either afraid or incapable of defending his proposals, regardless of the fora in which his is challenged or who challenges this work.
I think we deserve to see the McCarthy Review Group’s menu so that we can assess how good the Government is at judging options or creating new options and then deciding on them.
Donal,
Interesting argument but what you are proposing transforms Pericles’ adage: “Although only a few may originate a policy, we are all able to pre-judge it.”
The gist of my argument is not “if” the McCarthy report should be published, it’s about “when”: it’s the Cabinet’s responsibility to make the difficult political choices from the menu of possible decisions set out in this report because that’s their bloody job. Once they have decided what direction they want to go in – which recommendations they will not proceed with, which ones they accept and will immediately implement, which ones they would modify and which ones are more appropriate to a longer timescale for implementation – then and only then should the report in full be published. If it is published prematurely, then the Government are abdicating their responsibility for making policy to a plethora of interest and lobby groups and taxpayers money is entirely wasted on employing them at all.
What you propose would also place Colm McCarthy at the centre of any public debate on what should be government policy on public expenditure cuts and control. Although I cannot think of a personality more robust to defend his position on anything, Colm McCarthy is not the government and his responsibility and professional role in this exercise ends when he hands the report over to the Minister for Finance who commissioned it in the first place the better to inform the government in making its own decisions on public expenditure reform and control. I think any Irish government would find it very difficult in the future to get any economist or other expert to chair such an exercise if the first thing they were going to do when faced with a series of unpalatable and difficult recommendations was cast the expert into the eye of a public storm about a raw report on which no political decisions have been made and dodge off on their summer holidays leaving him to it.
The comparison of this report with an EIS is a bit strange in its interpretation of the role of government in a democratic state: the government is not applying to the public for ‘planning permission’ for a major project. The point of judgement about their policy choices on the McCarthy report or any other aspect of economic policy arises at the next general election.
Aside from the many other deficiencies in the way our political system operates – as debated many times on this site and elsewhere – a core problem with successive governments over the past thirty years is the extent to which they have become increasingly beholden to vociferous lobbies and sectional interests in making policy decisions. Arguably, a lot of the trouble we’re in arises from politicians’ refusal to say “no”, and stick to it, either for politically venal reasons, or because they’re afraid of the media or because all they can think of is gathering votes. History judges political success on the effectiveness of policies that were adopted, not the number of seats lost or gained by any political bloc in any general election. I think our political class have long lost sight of that, but for the present government, at any rate, they’ve run out of rope. And that’s no bad thing at all!
@Veronica
As you know, I favour a complete separation of powers in our government system precisely (but not only for this reason alone) so that we, citizens, can understand better what options are presented to Government.
You and I disagree on the timing of the release of reports by government appointed groups
In this case, the McCarthy Review Group has been asked to present a number of options. If I remember correctly, they have not been asked to decide anything, other than what should be presented. Government will then make decisions – at a time and in a manner of its own choosing.
IMO, competent people of integrity do not fear controversies that can arise from work, commissioned by government. Many such people do not fear making presentations and explaining their work in public – in what can sometimes be highly charged fora. I suggest that such people do not like the secrecy that surrounds their reports, with the scope that gives for spinning/kite-flying/ reduction to sound-bites/twisting of their proposals. I assume that, in general, such people would prefer that the public have a chance to see the full set of proposals, with the evidence backing the proposals up and the argument developed from that evidence or data. At least, their competence and integrity would be visible ie. not subject to the results of their work only being known through selective, incomplete and slanted leaks!
The example of planning applications may not be perfect. However, I still think it illustrates a point that in certain cases options have to be presented, for public access, by the proposers of any development along with worked out reasons for the particular option for which permission is being sought.
I offer another example. While I did not take hand, act or part in the 1993 National Education Convention, I gather that one aspect of the way it worked was to show the participants what all the options sought implied in terms of resources. I suggest that the mere fact of seeing the options presented and understanding that constraints exist, assists public acceptance that policy is not being made on whimsical and arbitrary basis.
We the public may not like the decisions!
Our judgement of the Government on this (and other issues) will be inferred from the TDs we elect at the next general election. But as you almost certainly realise, a major factor in determining who is elected in any constituency is our preference to elect people who will represent the constituency. Government formation does not rank as highly, in the normal course of events. The next election may be different, but that remains to be seen.
Donal,
Our discussion has been overtaken by events, since it appears the government has taken a decision not to publish the report before they have had a chance to think about it and make political decisions on its contents.
Clamour for immediate publication is coming from Richard Bruton and Joan Burton. You have to ask yourself why they want to get their mitts on it and the answer, unfortunately, is obvious – nothing to do with the public interest, all to do with using its contents as another stick with which to beat the government and turn the whole exercise into a political football. In Burton’s case, one can safely predict, the response would be replete with the usual over the top negativity and little else.
I can think of no better way of ensuring policy is made on a “whimsical and arbitrary basis” than through immediate publication of this report.
As for disagreeing with you on moving to an American style system of government, well we’ll just have to agree to disagree. Apart from the fact that it’s entirely unlikely to happen in my lifetime anyway, I remain to be convinced of the merit of this proposal.
@Veronica
Noted.
Donal,
Straight from the Tanaiste’s mouth on yesterday’s Order of Business in the Dail:
“The Tánaiste: The finalisation of this document has not happened. It will be given to the Minister for Finance next week. It will then be brought before the Government, which will then determine whether its publication will be appropriate. That decision has not been made.
Deputy Eamon Gilmore: Can I just comment on that?
An Ceann Comhairle: Strictly speaking, the question that can be asked on this report is whether it is to be laid before the Houses. There has not been a promise to do so, so we are straying outside the strict rules. Anyway, it appears you have something to say briefly.
Deputy Eamon Gilmore: I will be very brief. I now understand from the Tánaiste that this will be presented to the Minister for Finance next week, and will be considered by the Government thereafter. Will it be considered by the Government before it breaks for its own holidays? Can the Tánaiste indicate to us when that will be? When will that document be laid before the House?
The Tánaiste: It will be highly likely that it will be made available once the Minister for Finance has received it.
Deputy Eamon Gilmore: Highly likely?
The Tánaiste: I am talking about it being made available to the Cabinet. As I am only one member of the Cabinet, I am not in a position to make a decision as to whether it will be published or not until the Cabinet meets to discuss it.”
Maybe someone will get a straight answer out of the Taosieach early next week? Or then again, maybe not!
@Veronica
Thanks for the update.
I could live the McCarthy Review Group’s report being laid before the houses of the Oireachtas – next week!
Donal,
Don’t hold your breath! Not that I think it should be placed before the Houses before the Autumn – for the reasons I’ve argued above – but a clear statement from Government as to when it is likely to be published would be helpful. The sort of fudging that Mary Coughlan indulged in on the Order of Business is worrying as much as it is irritating.
@Veronica
I can live with the certainty that such reports be made available as a matter of routine eg. CSO reports, ESRI’s QEC, and many others. I am fed-up being governed in arbitrary and whimsical ways characterised by the selective release of data and information through spins/leaks/kite-flying on the options presented to our democratically-appointed decision makers – to whom we have delegated our power to govern ourselves, through the electoral process.
We are now living with the results what our governing class has wrought over the last 10 years. IMO, it is time to remind ourselves, of which they are a part, of Jonathan Swift’s observation that “Providence never intended to make the management of public affairs a mystery to be comprehended by a few persons of sublime genius.”
Apart from the immediate issue of this series of postings, I am very interested in re-building our way of governing ourselves with Swift’s observation in mind, along with other insights accumulated here in addition to other cultures and places since Swift made that comment. This means much discussion, in all kinds of fora, as we try to agree, sufficiently, the need for such refurbishment and the details. The process will be messy as we will inevitably start clarifying what principles we should use to guide us and what means we should adopt to put those principles into practice, without fudging on either or the organisation needed to serve those values.
I think it is grossly unfair that the Government are even thinking about targetting the most vulnerable in our society those on social welfare & child benefit. Means testing is most decidedly not the way to solve a problem that the Government has created. Leave our children & the elderly alone. Tax the people who can afford it