It's decision time on semi-state sell off
THE attack by ESB chief executive Padraig McManus on the McCarthy report's observations on his company is one for students of accountancy. It appears to centre on how to treat the cost of giving extra years' pension entitlement to workers who avail of early retirement.
Or perhaps not. The best the non-accountant can say is that ESB pensions are very generous, but won't be as generous in the future. The significant thing is not the argument, but that it is about the only discussion we have had since the report was published. It adds to a palpable sense of inaction; in stark contract to the promises that the first 100 days of the new government would be ones of shock and awe.
Things are not helped by the spectacle of that most discredited of political activities, elections to the Seanad. It may have been impractical to try to cancel or postpone the elections, but they should be occurring in the context of firm evidence that they will be the last of their kind.
Opinions can vary as to whether there should be a senate or not. Hardly anyone believes that it should continue as it is, but more and more it is beginning to feel that, after all, it might.
For its part, the McCarthy report provides an analytical framework for policy on state companies. There is as yet no sense of any government policy to which that analysis could be applied. The ESB boss cut right to the chase on that one. If the purpose is to sell state assets to raise money, there is no reason not to get on with it. He also put a market value of around €6bn on the ESB, which indicates that perhaps considerable sums could be raised. In which case, it is difficult to know what is the sense of government suggestions that sales will be limited to €2bn.
Alternatively, the purpose might be to make the state companies more efficient so that they make a greater contribution to the economy. Whatever the merits of Mr McManus's points yesterday, the evidence of the report is that too much of the contribution of state companies goes to their employees, and not enough to the community in general.
The most important thing, though, is a decision on the purpose of policies for the semi-state sector, and the sooner the better.
All are equal in the eyes of the law
THE essence of victimisation or intimidation is that someone is picked upon and treated more harshly than others. It is therefore right and proper that the independence of judges is protected from governments trying to put financial pressure on them.
That, without doubt, is the purpose of the provision in the Constitution which prevents a government interfering with judicial pay. But there is something seriously wrong if this is taken to mean that judges are not to be treated in the same way as everyone else.
That is the mirror image of victimisation -- favouritism. It might be more dangerous if government were able to pick on the judiciary, but it is just as improper if the judges cease to be citizens and subject to the same rules as everyone else.
No doubt most judges would agree with that. The difficulty comes when the principle has to be put into practice.
The wrong methods could provide some future government with a precedent for specifically targeting judicial earnings as a way of pressuring the courts. But a right method will have to be found. It is unacceptable that judges decide whether they wish to take on the same burdens imposed on others.
Any review of judges' pay will have to keep this principle in mind. It may be that an independent mechanism will be needed, to keep politicians' hands out of the judicial pockets. Its purpose, however, is clear; to ensure that, at the end of such a process, the judges will be treated the same as every other public servant; neither worse -- nor better.
It does not make things any easier that the final arbiters of any such process will be judges. No-one else can determine whether the constitution has been observed. But, as the saying goes, that's what they're paid for.
0 comments:
Post a Comment