The announcement by government of new subsidies to the bus owners is an affront to common sense, and verges on an abuse of public funds.
Befoe accession in 2004 we had been led to believe that European Union membership would put paid to the culture of generous subsidies to undeserving sectors: which, as anyone in the private sector will complain, have plagued public finances for enough of our recent past.
Nevertheless, it seems that old habits die hard. It appears that, for all the transport ministry’s tough talking during last June’s ill-fated (and arguably illegal) wildcat strike, bus owners and several other beneficiaries will continue to be treated as sacred cows, as they have in the past by governments of every hue.
So far, their privileged status has relied on the ability of the taxpayer to cough up the cost of government subsidies. Government appears to be slow in realising this, but those days are now emphatically over. At a time when taxpayers and business operators are being forced to meet the real cost, and more beside, thanks to the recent revisions to utility bills, no single sector of the economy is entitled to expect such windfalls.
Contrast the €50m being offered to the bus owners with the puny €10m set aside to cushion the rest of the country from the impact of the utility bills... whose rates were revised specifically to make good for the removal of a subsidy almost identical to that now offered to bus owners.
Meanwhile, the country’s economic engine, business, has been allocated a mere €2.5 million, with a promise of micro-credit assistance that nows looks likely to be offset by the decision to charge high interest rates on late payments of utility bills.
Besides, it is worth questioning the way in which the new subsidy has been decided. Outrageously, it appears that the precise amount was calculated on the basis of the blackmarket value of the licence, thanks to the ‘closed shop policy’ in the issue of licences. In so doing, the Government may well be renouncing its right ever to fully liberalise this market.
And yet, the same government constantly reminds us that it cannot afford to fork out more money for medicines, and that for this reason, certain expensive medicines cannot qualify for government assistance. So when bus drivers are bestowed a cool €52 million in handouts, we cannot but ask whether government has its priorities in the right order.
And this is just the tip of the iceberg. While we have yet to face the harshest effects of the global financial crisis, the €70 recently allotted to installing ‘smart meters’ made us curious. For the same reason, the €20m allocated to a Biotechnology Park seemed to be poorly timed. But to grant €50m in subsidies merely to get rid of the old buses, without replacing a single one of them, seems just bananas. Whatever happened to putting public finances in order?
Our misgivings are also based on past experience: often, the introduction of new operators has left little difference in the service on offer. We have every reason to fear that the main change will be an increase in the price to commute.
Workers and businesspeople alike will be justified in experiencing the sneaking suspicion that this vast expense simply paves the way for a new operator who will have all the benefits of a monopoly, and none of the burdens of a public service.
Of course there’s lots of room for improvement, but will we get it? Will a change from cartel to monopoly make a vast difference? How?
Above all this subsidy to the bus owners calls into question the priorities of this government. We fear it is insensitive to the real issues affecting real people. Besides, this same administration is already too far gone in its addiction to grandiose projects, all of which remain light years away from the day-to-day concerns of taxpayers struggling to meet their utility bills and to preserve their jobs.
We were elated to hear that government would be placing jobs at the forefront of its agenda and are certain that help given to businesses this year and last will go a long way protecting these jobs.
But with so many jobs now at risk, how could the same government negotiate a 10-year employment guaranteeto one particular sector? What is the sense in creating another class of ‘untouchable’ workers, a privileged subclass of small businesses, at a time when other, less forutunate sectors are bracing themselves for the worst?
The business community will be justified in expecting a detailed explanation of this latest decision. After all, it is owed nothing less.
Any comments?
If you wish your comments to be published in our Letters pages please click button below. Please write a contact number and a postal address where you may be contacted.
