There are many ways – you give them incentive to reduce costs. The depts themselves should be capable of doing so. If they can’t outside help does it for them. Just because some service is noble and needed, does not mean that it is being run efficiently. People need to realise this.
It's not a question of nobility or otherwise. It's a serious question about how you measure effeciency in areas such as the examples I gave above. It's easy to reduce costs - the difficult bit is reducing cost without reducing quality and effectiveness.
Ones in targeted areas where we can grow an indigenous industry down the line should be free. Others less so. Solicitors and other professions for example, while needed, do bugger all for the economy. They are well paid, so let them borrow for their own education, if that is the path they choose. Cut back on maybe arts and other degrees where the immediate value is not clear. It’s a carrot and stick approach to having a more productive and educated workforce in areas that we need people. Engineering, math and science are the future. This is where we need graduates.
It would be great to have free college for all in anything they want to do forever, but it is not a wise use of money, especially at the moment.
If people want to get a degree that makes then basically unemployable, they should pay for it with their own money, not the states.
I'm a bit stunned at these comments. Just about every significant business transaction requires legal input, so your suggestion that solicitors do 'bugger all for the economy' are somewhat flawed.
Yes in fact. Take new York where a zero tolerance policy to crime was enacted in the 70’s, when it was a dump. Zero tolerance cleaned it up. I have lived in many countries and Ireland has a petty crime issue much greater than most. The three strikes rule takes repeat offenders and gets them off the streets. If people are not willing to play by the rules, society should not have to put up with it.
I'm pretty sure New York never had a '3 strikes' policy. And the zero tolerance policy was enacted by Guliani in the 90s, not in the 70s. Any the crime reductions experience by California (which did bring in a '3 strikes' policy) were pretty much matched across the states by those that didn't have a '3 strikes' policy'. We really need a bit more of evidence-based research if we are going to improve things.
If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem and all that….
If you rush to implement half-cocked ideas, you will certainly make things considerably worse - just look at the decentralisation mess.
Set up a Report Waste hotline for government departments. There are lots of anecodatal stories of certain workers in the public sector or contracted to the public sector doing nothing. Provide a phone line where people can report waste and this can be investigated. I am sure that there are lots of hard working civil servants who would like to get rid of those people in the next office who do nothing and give them a bad name.
While the goal is admirable, I don't think a hotline is the solution. Firstly, it would need a team to staff the hotline and follow up - do you really want MORE public servants now. Secondly, a hotline takes responsibility away from line managers. Perhaps some new process across the board to allow waste to be reported, highlighted and addressed and followed up through normal line management processed.
When my organisation was first asked about cost savings earlier this year, I sent a memo to the director with 8 or 10 ideas for saving money. Some of these ideas were partially in train, but most have been ignored.
Make social welfare fraud the resonsibility of CAB who can not be as easily intimidated as social welfare inspectors. As those seeking benefit rises at at alarming rate, it is critical to ensure that those getting it are doing so within the rules.
I haven't heard that the DSFA have had any huge difficulties with intimidation in recent years. Is this a sledgehammer to crack a nut?
Charlie was a think outside the box in finance. that is what is needed now.look for example at the reduction of cgt rate dramatically increasing the tax take.
Charlie's 'outside the box' thinking has cost the state a huge amount of money through his rushed, mis-targeted decentralisation plan. The principle of decentralisation is great. Charlie's plan ignored the issue of the specialisation of state agencies, and the lack of transferability across agencies, and National Spatial Strategy.
Let him pay back the State the €200m or so that he's cost us, and then I'll consider having him back.