Menu
Ireland's political and cultural magazine
— village November - December 2009
strange starting point. The Government
tells the public sector to stop contracting con-
sultants. Departments and State bodies were
to reduce expenditure by doing their own work
rather than buying in external support. Then
the Government comes to consider what to do
about further cutting public expenditure. They
reach for an external consultant and bring in
Colm McCarthy from UCD.
It got even stranger. Colm McCarthy and
his Special Group on Public Service Numbers
and Expenditure Programmes reported in July
. The Government spent months look-
ing serious and concerned but determined
to do their duty in response to the harsh
measures proposed. Then it begins to emerge
that the submissions made by Government
Departments to the McCarthy group were at
times more draconian than the final report
itself.
It was, however, a handy starting point.
By contracting out this work to an external
consultant the Government could step back
from its political rhetoric of making sure the
most vulnerable were to be protected and
could sidestep any requirement to conduct a
poverty impact assessment on the proposals
being made. The McCarthy Report is extraor-
dinary in that there is no assessment of the
social impact of the proposals made.
The report starts by stating that resolute
action in expenditure control is needed to
address fiscal imbalances, minimise the need
for tax increases, lower debt service obliga-
tions and underpin international confidence.
This emphasis on minimising the need
for tax increases mirrors the conclusions of
the Commission on Taxation whose report
and whose terms of reference set out to keep
Ireland a low-tax economy. This determina-
tion to remain a low-tax economy means that it
is people living in poverty who will pay for this
economic crisis – an economic crisis caused by
those living in wealth. Underpinning inter-
national confidence is a code for austerity and
reduction in the public services. Why is there
no-one out there ,internationally, whose con-
fidence might be bolstered by a more equal
Ireland?
The McCarthy report demonstrates no con-
cern with the impact of its proposals on pov-
erty or inequality. By way of example, this is
evident in proposals in relation to social wel-
fare rates, immigration and integration ser-
vices, and community infrastructure.
The McCarthy report recommends that
social welfare rates should be reduced by %,
or at least %, and that the Christmas bonus
should not be paid. These savings of up to
€. billion are rationalised on the basis of
falling inflation, falling wage rates and com-
parisons with British welfare rates. Not a word
on impact.
Proposals would assail the most
vulnerable and undermine the
bases of our society.
n i a l l c r o w l e y
’
An Bord Snip
Almost as if blinkered
PHOTO: PHOTOCALL IRELAND
village_oct_09.indd 40 27/10/2009 15:38:45
A focus on impact would have clarified
that McCarthy is asking people on a basic
rate of €. per week to pay up for the
economic crisis. People who are officially
deemed to be on or below the poverty line
have to pay for the excesses of the Celtic Tiger
economy. This proposal will deepen poverty
and inequality.
The report recommends that the Office of
the Minster for Integration should be discon-
tinued and that the Irish Naturalisation and
Immigration Service should be reduced from
staff to staff. These savings of €
million are proposed on the basis of falling
immigration and the resolution of the once-
off needs of non-Irish-national parents of Irish
born children. Not a word on impact.
A focus on impact would have noted the cur-
rent delays of at least two years in dealing with
family reunification requests and applications
for residency or citizenship, and the real poten-
tial of a rise in racism in a time of recession.
This saving will increase hardship for people
who are already in the most difficult circum-
stances. It will contribute to a fragmented and
unequal society.
Cutbacks are recommended in local devel-
opment, community development, community
services and community and voluntary sector
supports. These savings of €. million are jus-
tified on the basis of the McCarthy group having
little evidence of positive outcomes from these
programmes. Not a word on impact.
A focus on impact would have acknowl-
edged how community-sector organisations
contribute to basic survival in communities
assailed by traumas such
as poverty, drugs or vio-
lence. It would have iden-
tified the role of these
organisations in offer-
ing new opportunities to
people living in poverty.
It would have recognised
that public-sector services
achieve a greater impact in
communities where these
organisations enable com-
munities to articulate and
negotiate.
These are just three examples of where
a focus on poverty impact should have led
to very different proposals. The picture
gets worse again, of course, with other
recommendations to reduce staff in the HSE
by , special needs assistants in schools
by , English-language support teachers
by , and teachers in primary and post-
primary schools. These reductions will further
deepen inequality and poverty.
We cannot afford McCarthy. Inequality
in society is not an abstraction: it causes a
wide range of health and social problems.
Educational attainment and life expectancy
will drop. Illegal drug-use and violence will
increase. Mental health problems will rise
and social trust will breaks down. The imple-
mentation of this report will damage the basic
standard of life for people already living in
poverty. It will diminish the well-being of
most people in society by increasing inequal-
ity. It will create social problems that will
require unsustainable investments of public
finance long into the future.
“Why is there no-one out
there internationally whose
confidence might be bolstered
by a more equal Ireland?”
the Special Group on Public Service Numbers and Expenditure
Programmes will have a significant and negative impact on the well-being of
communities experiencing inequality and poverty. It is reasonable to expect
that any recommendations made would at least be evidence based.
The report recommends a reduction of € million in the allocation to
local and community development programmes funded by the Department of
Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs. The rationale given for this cutback
was that “There is little evidence of positive outcomes for these initiatives”.
The largest of these initiatives is the Local Development Social Inclusion
Programme (LDSIP). This programme funds over seventy area based partnership
organisations which support social inclusion through local community based
action. In , the Department of Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs
commissioned a Value for Money Review of the programme. This was completed
by Fitzpatrick Associates Economic Consultants in November . The
Department of Finance was involved in the steering group for this review.
The review found that “the continuation of social inclusion problems
emphasises the continued validity of the Local Development Social Inclusion
Programme’s overall objectives”. It noted a high level of activity and outputs
from the partnership organisations and satisfactory levels of progression for
individual beneficiaries of their services for the unemployed.
The review found that “in terms of the ultimate benefits generated by Local
Development Social Inclusion Programme expenditure, the actual cost of LDSIP
interventions, per individual beneficiary, is relatively small – below € per
beneficiary”. The review went on to point out that “the prevention, in even a
small number of cases, of highly costly long-term interventions (such as income
support, healthcare and justice) would outweigh the LDSIP costs”.
The Value For Money Review concluded that “public funding (of the LDSIP)
should continue in the period ahead” with a sharpening and re-focusing of objec-
tives. It further stated that “for the present there is no basis on which to propose
a departure from the funding level envisaged in the new National Development
Plan -”.
There is therefore clear evidence of positive outcomes from these initiatives.
This evidence was available to the Department of Finance and the Department
of Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs. Why was Colm Mc Carthy’s group
allowed to conclude that there was no such evidence and to proceed to recom-
mend a € million cutback in this area on the basis of this?
An Bord Snip ignored
the Evidence
Cuts to social inclusion programmes would fly in the
face of research – and the Department of Finance
knows it.
n i a l l c r o w l e y
PHOTO: PHOTOCALL IRELAND
village_oct_09.indd 41 27/10/2009 15:38:45
