Sir, – If the foreign earnings deduction is expected to encourage Irish exports, why restrict it to the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China or South Africa)? Of course, China and India have grown impressively in recent years. But from 2000 to 2009, the Vietnamese GDP grew slightly faster than India’s, Russian growth was unremarkable, Peru and Argentina both grew faster than Brazil, and Nigeria and even Kenya outstripped South Africa.
Why not make the deduction available in all export markets outside Europe and North America, and let potential exporters choose in which markets there are the best opportunities? – Yours, etc,
Sir, – It is with one eye on the future and one on the recent past that I wonder if anyone but me is concerned about Michael Noonan’s attempt to artificially create a bottom to our housing market collapse? Are we once again interfering with the free market and will we once again blame it after it tries to correct itself in the future?
By offering extra interest relief for first-time buyers, are we again trying to create a housing bubble? Something is only worth what it can be sold for on the open market . . . unless, as we have learned in the past, our government gives the open market a nudge or two along the way. The people happiest with this godsend from Mr Noonan must be the developers who will now find it much easier to clear their backlog of houses and the bankers who will have a far higher chance of regaining some of the losses incurred in recent years. New politics; new fairer way? Can we have Charlie Mc Creevy back? – Yours, etc,
Sir, – Unsurprisingly most of the correspondence to date relates to those groups who have been adversely affected by budgetary changes and involves special pleading on their behalf. But what is equally disturbing is lack of any intention to address, let alone tackle over the medium-term, the structural issues underlying our deficit, where we diverge from European norms.
It has been established that public servant rates of pay have continued to rise and now substantially exceed their EU peer groups. The Minister for Social Protection has also proudly proclaimed the generosity of our main benefits in comparison with the UK.
If we are to continue to keep the beneficiaries of such largesse in the style to which they have become accustomed, can the Government explain who will be expected to pay for such magnanimity, particularly since high earners pay so little income tax? – Yours, etc,
Sir, – The “budgetary axe” which was brought down on the provision of guidance counselling in the post-primary sector has not only sent shock-waves across a deeply committed profession but has by and large slipped under the media radar.
At a time when frontline supports are paramount, this pronouncement is one of the most regressive policy moves in Irish post-primary education for some time. Specifically, it is a reneging on the policy commitments made by the Department of Education whereby the provision of education, career and personal guidance counselling is a statutory requirement to ensure “that students have access to appropriate guidance to assist them in their educational and career choices” (Education Act (1998) Section 9). A sentiment also made in recent Government strategies whereby “provision of guidance and counselling in second-level schools is vital to enable each pupil to gain the maximum benefit from the education system” (NDP, 2000-2006; 2007-2013).
On a broader level the provision of lifelong guidance has been promoted by the Government as central to education, employment and social equity goals for all citizens. Unfortunately, this Budget decision will lead to greater societal divisions in an already inequitable society whereby only those who can afford to “pay” for career guidance will be able to avail of it.
However, guidance is not only about “careers”, a misconception that has been promulgated for years in Ireland. At this critical time in Irish education young people are facing unusually high levels of uncertainty including: instability of parental employment and family income, retention of family home, risk-taking behaviour, self-harm, substance misuse, anxiety, depression, identity crisis, examination pressure, and difficult career choices. The provision of a holistic model education and career and personal guidance counselling in post-primary education is central to students’ overall development and wellbeing.
It is also apparent that the long-term impact of this short-sighted decision has not been fully considered in terms of the pressure it will put on post-primary guidance services when disenfranchised secondary students exit the system.
Such services include the national Adult Educational Guidance Initiative (AEGI) and the third-level careers services, both of which have been affected by the public service moratorium on recruitment.
Furthermore, as a qualified guidance counsellor, the biggest concern is that this erosion of provision will result in the de-professionalisation of a profession that has fought hard for recognition within our education system.
Little account has been given of the cost involved in the diminution of the service, ie the personal and systemic resources that have been invested by practitioners and education providers to develop this profession and deliver an effective school-based service to young people, which is now recognised as a model of good practice across Europe.
If greater efficiency in the sector is needed, why was it not sought through a consultative process with all partners in education including those now being left out in cold, the guidance counsellors? – Yours, etc,
