Background Papers to An Bord Snip Nua

There is much of interest in the background papers prepared by departments and agencies for the Special Group  on Public Service Numbers and Expenditure Programmes, released under FOI legislation here.  Those with time on their hands may want to assess Group recommendations against the views of the relevant department on what cuts could be made and the potential costs of such cuts. Lawyers may be interested in examining the redactions and justifications under the FIO Acts 1997 and 2003.

By Colin Scott

Colin Scott is Principal, UCD College of Social Sciences and Law and Professor of EU Regulation and Governance at UCD. He is a Co-Editor of Legal Studies (Wiley-Blackwell).

5 replies on “Background Papers to An Bord Snip Nua”

The Government website requires you to go through a two-page procedure to get at each submission – an unwieldy and time-consuming process. Can’t make FOI too easy for the masses, eh?

Anyways, I wanted to download the lot so I produced the following – hopefully the upload will work and the links will be repoduced.

1. Departmental submissions on Bord Snip Nua 2009
Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.pdf
Arts, Sport and Tourism.pdf
Community, Gaeltacht and Rural Affairs.pdf
Communications, Energy and Natural Resources.pdf
Comptroller and Auditor General.pdf
Education (Part 1).pdf
Education (Part 2).pdf
Environment , Heritage and Local Government.pdf
Enterprise, Trade and Employment.pdf
Foreign Affairs.pdf
Houses of the Oireachtas.pdf
Justice, Equality and Law Reform.pdf
Finance Group of Votes
Finance Vote Group Votes 6, 7 and 12 and PAS.pdf
Office of Public Works.pdf
Office of the Appeals Commissioner.pdf
Office of the Ombudsman.pdf
Office of the Revenue Commissioners.pdf
Office of the Commission for Public Service Appointments.pdf
State Laboratory.pdf
Valuation Office.pdf
National Treasury Management Agency.pdf
Social and Family Affairs.pdf
Taoiseach Vote group.pdf
2. Evaluation Papers from the Department of Finance
Agriculture, Fisheries and Food – DoF Evaluation Paper.pdf
Arts, Sport and Tourism – DoF Evaluation Paper.pdf
Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs- DoF Evaluation Paper.pdf
Communications, Energy and Natural Resources – DoF Evaluation Paper.pdf
Defence – DoF Evaluation Paper.pdf
Education – DoF Evaluation Paper.pdf
Enterprise Trade and Employment – DoF Evaluation Paper.pdf
Environment, Heritage and Local Government – DoF Evaluation Paper.pdf
Finance Group of Votes – DoF Evaluation Paper.pdf
Foreign Affairs – DoF Evaluation Paper.pdf
Houses of the Oireachtas – DoF Evaluation Paper.pdf
Justice, Equality and Law Reform – DoF Evaluation Paper.pdf
Health and Children – DoF Evaluation Paper.pdf
Office of Public Works – DoF Evaluation Paper.pdf
Social and Family Affairs – DoF Evaluation Paper.pdf
Taoiseach Vote Group – DoF Evaluation Paper.pdf
Transport – DoF Evaluation Paper.pdf

3. Cross cutting Issues
Regulators and Ombudsman Office.pdf
Enterprise Supports.pdf
Local Delivery Mechanisms.pdf
Management of State Properties.pdf
Public Procurement Policy.pdf
Science,Technology and Innovation (STI).pdf
Labour Force Activation.pdf
Information Communications Technology.pdf
Note on travel and Subsistence.pdf

BTW, I had a quick look at one of the submissions and spotted a quango that I had never heard of before (but that’s no great suprise, really). Perhaps someone has a spare slave, or research assisstant, as they are called these days, who could comb these documents to produce a list of said organisations.

Slan from the PRC

I find the Transport paper very interesting, especially around page 74, covering public transport, an area I am familiar with. Since 2002, Dublin Bus’s operating subsidy has increased by 52 percent, but passenger numbers have only increased by 7 percent. Bus Eireann’s subsidy has gone up 90 percent since 2005, but they are only carrying about the same number of passengers.

The figures which the Department of Transport quotes comparing the Dublin Bus subsidy to other major cities are quite simply wrong. The figures have been miscalculated or misinterpreted. From my calculations, the actual percentage subsidy to Dublin Bus social services is far higher than the figure quoted. In 2009, you can calculate from the DB accounts that the operating subsidy was 35 percent. There was a further capital subsidy, and if you were to take that into account to make the figure comparable with subsidy figures in other cities, the subsidy would be well over 40 percent.

Revenue are so prud of their efficiency yet it has meant that tax assessment and collection hassuffered. This is hidden by their policy that if a tax[payer does not opt in then they are ignored. The so called phoenix cases where a company is run while taxes on employees PRSI and PAYE, and customers, VAT and sharholders, CT close company, are rac ked up if properly accounted for at all. Then that company goes outof business after a short period of trading. A new company, same as before with similar tradr name, starts the cycle over again. Who needs tax avoidance? That costs money! Very competitive and eventually it drives an entire industry as in the building trade.
But Revenue are efficient nd slimming down is going to have an effect on tax take. People are more reluctant in a downturn to pay ordinary creditors.

I bet McCarthy avoided talking to tax people “at the coal face”!

Comments are closed.