The Irish Times view on the election debate on the public finances: a frustrating affair

The debate on spending plans in the general election has been poor for two separate, though inter-linked reasons. The first is a lack of a level playing field to assess the spending and tax plans of the parties. The second is the – perhaps not surprising – unwillingness of most parties to talk about what would happen if tax revenue takes a hit in the years ahead.
The absence of a common framework to assess the commitments and the budgetary outlook presented by the parties has led to a series of spats, and offered little light to voters. The solution is obvious – have an independent agency which is responsible for fully costing the plans and, crucially, looking at their impact on the budgetary outlook. This is common in many European countries, with the Netherlands identified as a particularly good example of best practice in the area.
Indeed, in the programme negotiated on its formation, the current coalition promised to give this job to the Parliamentary Budget Office (PBO), an independent unit attached to the House of the Oireachtas. It was to be charged with taking this oversight of manifestos and also, interestingly, looking at their wider economic impact. The Fiscal Advisory Council could also conceivably take on this role.
This would at least give voters a clear assessment of whether the various manifestos add up and where questions may lurk. It also gives a common framework to assess them all. And it provides an incentive for parties to put forward sensible policies .
No approach is perfect. The second problem remains – the public finances may not work out as expected and so plans have to be revised. But at least a proper assessment of plans put forward during a general election gives voters a better chance to judge where party priorities lie and where the wool is being pulled over their eyes, or an overly-optimistic approach taken. A proper assessment of the Irish party plans could look not only at how the numbers add up, but also the exposure to a fall-off in corporate tax revenue. That would be telling.