Committee Reports > List of Committees > Dáil > 1986 > Committee on Public Expenditure > Report - Annual Progress Report 1984/85

APPENDIX 3

A PROPOSAL FOR THE IMPROVEMENT OF PUBLIC AWARENESS AND PUBLIC EDUCATION WITH REGARD TO PUBLIC EXPENDITURE ISSUES

1.The increasing concern to bring about improvements in public expenditure efficiency and to eliminate waste and unnecessary duplication clearly suffers from the fact that there is, in general, no clear perception by the public in general of the scale of the problem or the relevance of its challenge to everyday life. For the average citizen, it is impossible to quantify public expenditure programme costs and there is very little clear idea of how a radical overhaul of public expenditure would bring about economic improvement. In short, there is an urgent need for massive public education of the scale and implications of the public expenditure challenge.

2.Such a vacuum will inevitably lead to significant and unnecessary resistance to proposals for improvement in our public expenditure problem. It is unrealistic to expect the public to passively accept initiatives or announcements in this area unless they are made aware of the scale of the problems, the implications of continuing to neglect them, the benefits of an equitable and firm approach to this enormous challenge and the various options from which choices may be made.

3.The following two proposals are suggestions designed to assist in the process of public education and awareness concerning the real scale of our country’s problem with regard to public expenditure and to give at least a general indication of the dimensions of the problem to the ordinary citizen. Obviously a different approach will be necessary for the professional grouping or the specialist, but it may well be our capacity to win the active support of the ordinary citizen that may ultimately decide whether or not we win this vital battle.

4.There are at least two specific problems which arise with regard to the perception of public expenditure by the citizen: Firstly, very few are able to evaluate the true cost of any public expenditure programme, or scheme, or benefit, and secondly, there is no overall picture of the total cost of such a programme to the State. In the first instance, the true and actual costs are nowhere made evident or obvious regardless of the public expenditure scheme and accordingly there is often expressed the view that “we are paying tax for nothing”, when in fact there are a whole range of services, the full and true cost of which are hidden and indeed, are not readily available even if one looks for such costs. Secondly, even the general cost of public expenditure programmes to the State is not readily to hand and accordingly, the public cannot quantify in any meaningful way the nature of the burden or the personal implications for them of any public expenditure programmes.

5.The first proposal, therefore, is that we agree to seek reports from all Government Departments and State and Semi-state agencies or bodies about the feasibility of spelling out, as often as possible, the true costs in relation to any of the services supplied by such departments or agencies. Further, the proposal is that such true costs be notified and clearly outlined wherever possible in all communications with the public or with those receiving such service, possibly along side the cost to the person receiving the service but nevertheless in such a way that the recipient is able to evaluate precisely the degree of public subsidy involved and the benefit being derived from the public expenditure in that case. What this means in effect can be exemplified by the following examples of such an approach.

1.Local authority tenants would be told on their invoices for rent both the true cost and the discounted (to them) cost;

2.Those in receipt of Mortgage Subsidy benefits would be told the precise financial advantage they were gaining from the public purse;

3.Those in receipt of educational services, including places in third level colleges, would receive details of the true cost to the State of that place in college alongside the discounted (to them) cost;

4.The same concept to apply with regard to health and hospital services;

5.And the same approach to be adopted in the myriad services being provided by all of the agencies referred to above.

6.The above mentioned examples serve to illustrate the general principle whereby, wherever possible, a true statement of actual cost relative to the net or discounted cost would be made available automatically in order to let people know what this huge burden of public expenditure was being utilised for. Obviously this would apply not just at Government Department level but also in the case of State and Semi-state agencies, and local authorities and health boards.

7.What is being proposed at this stage therefore, is that a report be obtained sympathetic to this principle and outlining its feasibility as a valuable means of informing public opinion and educating the public generally as to the full facts with regard to an area about which there is a great lack of public awareness or appreciation - through no fault whatever of the public.

8.Secondly, it is proposed that an even more rudimentary step be taken: That is, that a pamphlet be devised, setting out the name and a brief explanatory note of each programme of public expenditure presently available in the State, with the full cost to the exchequer listed along side it. Despite all the talk about public expenditure, the taxpayer is still not able to lay his hands on a simple and comprehensive statement which would outline for him the true and full position in this regard.

9.The proposal here is no more than that a simple factual analysis be made available to the general public of the scale and ingredients of the problem, which would let people know the cost to them and their fellow taxpayers of any given service being provided under the aegis of the public expenditure of the State. It is reasonable to believe that this proposal, also, would be a significant help in educating and informing public opinion.

MICHAEL KEATING, T.D.

CHAIRMAN.