"Women lyin' in ponds distributin' swords ..."

The reference to the EU Commission of the Irish government's proposal to expand, er, enhance the Business Expansion Scheme ("BES") by the Irish Congress of Trade Unions ("ICTU")provoked an incredulous reaction from the appropriate Minister. That reaction has been supported by those on whom the public rely for information about matters of this kind i.e. journalists.

My own reaction has been of a very different disbelief, which has been magnified by almost every media comment. No rational argument has been advanced for boosting BES, which must lead one to suspect that none can be found, even by those who have access to the relevant data. Even the bould Marc Coleman, having clearly shown that there existed no evidence to support it, felt obliged to agree that "the scheme is a good one" and distracted his readers with an irrelevant ad hominem (really ad homines et feminae, but let us avoid pedantry) attack on the trade union movement. Most commentators that I have read or heard simply parrot the ministerial line that many small companies have benefitted from the scheme, sometimes bolstered by examples.

So what ? Is this the only issue ? I would say that it is not even an issue: it is beyond dispute that BES has helped many enterprises and the wider economy as well. The ICTU's Paul Sweeney in Friday's Irish Times observes that it is obvious that those who pick up gold coins in the street benefit therefrom, but sensibly comments that (I paraphrase him and Monty Python) "suited men distributin'gold coins is no basis for a rational system of government".

As for gold coins, so for tax reliefs.

By the way, the Monty Python character goes on to claim that

Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.

(The last phrase is a reference to King Arthur's Lady in the Lake). Am I the only one left who still thinks that the only legitimate source of supreme executive power is indeed a "mandate from the masses", or democracy as we sometimes call it ? Very few people that I read or encounter day-to-day really think so any more. I may return to this theme.

I React in Dis-belief...

... and I hope that I am not alone.

Our Minister for Enterprise has expressed his "utter disbelief" that the ICTU is, among other things, suggesting that BES investments would be used as a tax-avoidance measure.

Neither I nor (I imagine) the ICTU is unaware that many BES companies benefit from the scheme, and that the State does well from its investment in some of them.

But the BES has been a terrific tax-avoidance scheme for all of its history, and most higher-rate taxpayers know it for nothing else.

I must refresh my knowledge of the cost-benefit studies. The last time I checked, the results were decidedly dodgy.

I hope that Mr Martin is not about to join the Martin Cullen school of project appraisal.