News

Originally posted on Business Post 09 July 2022.  Glowing reports from the IMF won’t mean much to those struggling with rent, fuel and food costs. It feels as if the country has just done some kind of economic Leaving Cert, with end of term reports published last week. First there was the Summer Economic Statement, then the Central Bank quarterly update, and finally on Thursday a good conduct report from the International Monetary Fund. Subject to the usual terms, conditions and hedging that we tend to find in economic assessments, the portrait which all three of these reports painted of the Irish economy is surprisingly positive. The Summer Economic Statement projects that there will be a modest budget surplus in 2022 with significant money available to help on the social welfare and tax front to take the sting out of inflation. The Central Bank is of the view that the inflation spike will be most pronounced in 2022, and that once we are through this current calendar year, inflation may revert to something more tolerable. Both the IMF and the Central Bank conclude that the employment outlook is perhaps as strong as it has ever been, with less unemployment, more vacancies available and much greater female participation in the labour force. This time three years ago, the predictions from all these bodies were not as positive. The commentary in the 2019 Summer Economic Statement and the Central Bank’s quarterly forecast in July 2019 was dominated by Brexit fears. The IMF chimed in with Brexit concerns as well, adding the escalation of global protectionism, and having to adapt to ongoing international tax changes for good measure Since then, of course, we did have Brexit which was orderly or disorderly, depending on your political (not commercial) point of view, a crushing pandemic, and a Russian invasion of Ukraine disrupting commodity supplies worldwide. You would never seek it out, but one outcome of the pandemic is that it was like an experimental laboratory for the economy. Decisions were stress-tested in a way that would otherwise never have been possible. Depending on how you count them, more business supports and social welfare benefits were paid out by government in the two years of the pandemic than might usually be the case over five years. The outcome of this “experiment” has been that these payments seem to have been more in the nature of an investment than in the nature of largesse. The pandemic has also proven that our tax base is very resilient. We have discovered that the exchequer is predominantly funded by the corporate sector paying corporation tax, high-income earners paying income tax – about 80 per cent of all income tax and USC comes from the top 20 per cent of earners – and consumer activity in the form of Vat. According to the June exchequer figures, over 85 per cent of all of our tax revenues come from these three sources. Whatever else is done in the September budget, these sources have to be managed and preserved as no package of social welfare benefits and tax reliefs can be delivered without them. This resilience is further underlined by the fact that it is Irish business that acts as the collector of taxes for PAYE and Vat. During the pandemic, a sensible process of tax debt “warehousing” was introduced which allowed business to defer paying PAYE and Vat to Revenue. However, it is surprising how little tax debt was deferred in this way. Totals did vary over the ebb and flow of the lockdowns, but broadly speaking, there was deferral only to the tune of 5 per cent of the total tax yield. That's a confident performance by Irish businesses in a pandemic crisis. This sense of business confidence is reflected by surveys such as the Bank of Ireland’s Economic Pulse, suggesting that business sentiment is currently higher than consumer sentiment, but vastly more so than in April 2020, when we all stared into the abyss of the Covid-19 pandemic. There will be some who will argue that all this confidence and positive sentiment is misplaced and that we underestimate the interest rate and inflationary challenges of the coming months, but nevertheless, that confidence is there and is already having a bearing. It may yet be bolstered further. The indifference, bordering on hooliganism, shown by the current British administration to the political and economic status of Northern Ireland and Ireland’s position within the EU could soon be remedied. It certainly can’t get much worse. The problem now for the government is to translate this economic capacity and success into consumer sentiment. Glowing reports from the IMF won’t cheer anyone who is struggling with fuel, grocery or accommodation costs, nor for that matter the employer who can’t get staff because prospective employees can’t find a place to rent. And while inflation is expected to ease over the next ten months or so, it won’t over the next ten weeks between now and budget time. The economic exams may have been passed with flying colours. The budget will be a different matter entirely. There could even need to be some economic mistakes made by over-spending or undertaxing on the next Budget Day to make the public aware of these past successes. Dr Brian Keegan is Director of Public Policy at Chartered Accountants Ireland

Karen Flannery and Níall Fitzgerald consider the critical points in the revised Chartered Accountants Ireland Code of Ethics, which came into effect on 1 March 2020. The revised Chartered Accountants Ireland Code of Ethics took effect on 1 March 2020. The revised Code was necessary to increase alignment with the International Ethics Standards Board for Accountants (IESBA) Code of Ethics, which underwent a significant restructure in recent years. While there are no changes to the fundamental principles, Chartered Accountants familiar with the previous Code of Ethics (effective September 2016 to 29 February 2020) will find the look and feel of the revised Code significantly different. While additional sections and emphasis were included, others were removed. This results in greater clarity and ease of navigation. Figure 1 provides an overview of the revised Chartered Accountants Ireland Code of Ethics. Added emphasis on fundamental principles The five fundamental principles of the Code of Ethics remain unchanged. These include integrity; objectivity; professional competence and due care; confidentiality, and; professional behaviour. The conceptual framework that describes the approach used to identify, evaluate and address threats to compliance with the fundamental principles also remains the same. However, there is now a heightened emphasis on the fundamental principles and the use of the overarching conceptual framework underlying each section of the Code. Before, much of the narrative was contained in a single section of the Code. Responding to non-compliance with laws and regulations New sections were added concerning non-compliance with laws and regulations (NOCLAR) for professional accountants in practice (Section 360) and professional accountants in business (Section 260). These bring the NOCLAR provisions of the IESBA Code of Ethics into the Institute’s Code. A vital feature of the NOCLAR provisions is the specific in-Code permission to breach the principle of confidentiality in the public interest. This permission has been explicit in the Institute’s Code for several years and so, the NOCLAR provisions can be seen as a change of detail rather than of substance. The new sections outline the required actions when NOCLAR is discovered and provide additional guidance in this area. Key points to note concerning the NOCLAR provisions are: The first response to identified NOCLAR is to raise the matter, and seek to address it, at the appropriate level within the relevant organisation (internally); Where NOCLAR is not dealt with appropriately internally, the professional accountant considers whether to report to an external authority in the public interest. The decision to report externally is (as it always has been) a complex one; and Where a report is made in the public interest and good faith, there is no breach of the confidentiality requirements of the Code of Ethics. However, there may be legal implications for the professional accountant to consider. Revised layout The most obvious change is the revised layout of the Code of Ethics, which now mirrors the structure of the IESBA Code of Ethics with additional material for members of Chartered Accountants Ireland. A new paragraph numbering format was introduced and as a result, sections were restructured (e.g. what was “Part C” (Professional Accountants in Business) is now “Part 2” in the revised Code).The revised layout facilitates more natural referencing and distinguishes between the Code’s requirements (in bold text and denoted by the letter ‘R’) and application material or guidance (indicated by the letter ‘A’). Complexity has been reduced by simplifying sentences and language in parts. Also a new ‘Guide to the Code’, explaining how it works, has been included. Other content changes Table 1 highlights other notable developments in the revised Code of Ethics and suggests where you might focus your attention depending on whether you are a member in practice or business. Retained Institute ‘add-on’ material Where existing Institute ‘add-on’ content created important additional requirements beyond the IESBA Code, these ‘add-on’ requirements are retained in the revised Code of Ethics. Such requirements include: Specific requirements regarding communicating with the predecessor accountant (Section 320); Particular obligations regarding transparency around the basis for fees and dealing with fee disputes (Section 330); and Agencies and referrals (Section 331). No new ‘add-on’ material was created. Additional support for members The Institute’s online Ethics Resource Centre is updated regularly with a range of supports and guidance for members. Additional information included in the old Code of Ethics, but removed in the revised Code and still considered useful, has been reproduced in a series of new Ethics Releases. The Ethics Releases are not a substitute for the requirements of the Code, but they do provide additional support for members in particular scenarios, including: Code of Ethics and changes in professional appointments; Code of Ethics and confidentiality; Code of Ethics and marketing of professional services; and Code of Ethics and corporate finance advice. Future updates The last substantial change to the Institute’s Code of Ethics was in 2016. While the Code does not change regularly, there is a significant body of work happening behind the scenes to ensure it remains appropriate, precise and effective in the context of the issues affecting the accounting profession. Members can, therefore, expect amendments from IESBA in the coming years; for example, considerations addressing the impact of technology-related ethics issues on the accounting profession. For members who are insolvency practitioners, a new Insolvency Code of Ethics is imminent. The current Code of Ethics for Insolvency Practitioners, appended as Part D of the Institute’s old Code of Ethics for members, remains in effect until then.  Actions speak louder than words It was evident from the Ethics Research Report, published by the Institute in January 2019, that members hold their professional and business ethics in high regard. While the Code of Ethics does not change regularly, it is a hallmark that establishes a minimum standard which is signed up to and shared by all members of the profession. It is useful to be familiar with its requirements and to remember that it is individual member actions that express commitment to the Code of Ethics in addition to a member’s personal ethics. The revised Code is available via the Institute’s Ethics Resource Centre.   Níall Fitzgerald FCA is Head of Ethics and Governance at Chartered Accountants Ireland.  Karen Flannery FCA is Head of Professional Standards Projects at Chartered Accountants Ireland.

Originally posted on Business Post 04 June 2022.  Many other developed countries would give their right arm to be in the solid economic position we are in. Yet we seem afraid to spend that largesse on causes that desperately need it.  We have emerged from the pandemic with an economy stronger than it has been for many years, a debt-to-GDP ratio hovering somewhere around 50 per cent, and full employment. We have suffered terrible loss and endured much misery, but much less so than other nations. Yet the advice from the Irish Fiscal Advisory Council (Ifac) for the future can be summarised in just two words: “Careful now.” Ifac has its job to do, but there’s more to economic life than is apparent in the ratios of tax-and-spend. Prominent among the the council’s concerns is our reliance on corporation tax. Yes, we do rely on a relatively small number of companies to pay corporation tax. But then we always did. That’s a phenomenon that has lasted more than 40 years. Only the names of the companies have changed and in some cases that was merely by virtue of merger, acquisition or simple rebranding. And yes, corporation tax receipts are higher than would be expected from domestic economic activity. But there’s a reason for that too. It’s called globalisation. If anything, the reliance on a small number of firms for corporation tax take is less flimsy than in the past. The corporation tax yield no longer stems from the availability of cheap manufacturing facilities and generous investment allowances in machinery and buildings. It flows from intellectual capital, which Ireland is uniquely qualified to host, and not just for tax reasons. No one locates intangible property in a country with a dodgy legal or political system. This is why the council’s call for the re-establishment of the rainy-day fund is unwarranted. Two decades ago, Irish taxpayers missed out on social services in their communities, special needs assistants in their schools, hospital care and decent roads to drive on, in favour of building a National Pensions Reserve Fund. The proceeds of their state-enforced frugality evaporated under the heat of the 2008 banking crisis. That cohort of taxpayers, and in the interests of full transparency I am among them, paid for the financial collapse twice – through reduced government investment pre-collapse and higher taxes post-collapse. And why should any group, however eminent, expect current ministers to build up a bank of cash for future ministers to spend after the next election? The injustice would not just be political. Why should anyone not have a home, or a university go underfunded, or a school not have a playground, or a hospital not have additional nurses and beds, in the interests of our totemic fear of the national debt? Many other developed countries would give their right arm to be in the solid economic position we find ourselves in. Yet we seem to be afraid even to recognise how well we are doing. We no longer measure ourselves by reference to the long established and international yardstick of gross domestic product (GDP). Instead, we have created a humbler measure called modified gross national income (GNI*) so that we don’t look quite as good, just in case we get above ourselves. We do not, British-style, have to think about imposing windfall taxes on industry to help our citizens with the rising cost of living. Our windfall taxes are already built into the existing system. We support industry in the pharmaceutical and technology sectors and benefit from their profitability through corporation tax receipts. We levy Vat at high rates on our hard-working consumers so that when prices rise, so too does the Vat take. Against that we may not be collecting sufficient social welfare contributions to provide the robust safety nets our citizens deserve against misfortune. There can be no argument against the economic benefits of such safety nets given the positive impacts of both the Pandemic Unemployment Payment and the Employer Wage Support Scheme. A key lesson from the pandemic surely is that targeted social welfare is not largesse. It makes good economic as well as social sense. It is better to spend money on our people than to build up rainy day funds which merely penalise the most productive elements of the economy while taking out of the equation money which could be better applied elsewhere. We have made that mistake in the past. It is strange that it be suggested again. A competent and influential body such as Ifac deserves our attention, but it seems to me that its May report is only contributing to a keening national imposter syndrome, perhaps inadvertently. We have problems with our health and welfare systems, and we need to invest more in housing and utilities, primarily water and power supply, but in the main we do well. We need to be mindful of what still has to be done, yet proud of what is already accomplished. We don’t need a “careful now” mindset. It is strange that anyone should believe we do. Dr Brian Keegan is Director of Public Policy at Chartered Accountants Ireland

Conal Kennedy, Head of Practice Consulting, writes: In Practice Consulting, we often take calls and emails from members about difficulties and challenges that arise in practice. One of the most common queries surrounds the rights and obligations of the various parties when there is a change of professional adviser. When a client decides to move from one accounting firm to another, both parties should cooperate to make the transition as smooth as possible. However, complications and difficulties can arise when one of the parties has a grievance. Sometimes, the relationship between the firm and the client may have lasted many years, and its ending can come as an unpleasant surprise to the existing accountant, the worse so if they have not been fully paid for all work done. On the other hand, the new accountant may be very pleased to gain a new client, and may be surprised in their turn by difficulties posed by the incumbent. In some rare instances, incoming accountants do not do all that is required of them under the Code of Ethics, particularly around professional enquiries. In Practice Consulting, we receive communications from members on both sides of the fence. We provide information and guidance to the member, bearing in mind of course that there are two sides to every issue. Let’s look at a typical scenario and discuss some of the issues and possible misconceptions, with the details anonymised but addressing problems that are common enough. As always, we need to concentrate on the key matters in a generalised way, so if you are faced with this scenario yourself, please go to the Sections 320 of the Code of Ethics for the full requirements and guidance. In our example, a firm has made contact with Practice Consulting, explaining that they have recently taken on a new client. The client is a limited company, who needs a non-audit accounts preparation assignment and tax compliance work carried out. The firm has sent the professional enquiry letter to the previous accountant. However, the outgoing accountant has written back to the firm and the client to say that they have not been paid for a certain piece of work, and are withholding clearance and keeping possession of all records until they have been paid in full. What are the rights and obligations of the parties? In the first instance, there is no such thing as “professional clearance” as such. No accounting firm can prevent another accounting firm from working for a client, and therefore no firm can give or withhold clearance. The incoming accountant is obliged to carry out professional enquiries to determine if there is any professional reason why they should not take up the appointment. This is the purpose of the “any professional reason” letter, to which the outgoing accountant should respond, with the approval of the client. The new agent should make their best efforts to obtain responses to the letter, including re-sending the letter by registered mail, if necessary. However, if they do not receive a response following reasonable efforts, and their other enquiries are sufficient to indicate that there is no valid reason not to take up the assignment, then they may proceed. In this instance, the existing accountant would appear to be attempting to take a lien, meaning a right to retain possession over certain documents that they have in their possession until they have been paid. Whilst this right still exists, it is really only applicable in quite narrow circumstances. Firstly, the outgoing accountant is obliged to co-operate with the successor to ensure that the client’s interests are not prejudiced, including the client’s obligation to comply with its legal obligations if there is no other means to do so. This may in effect mean the that the incumbent accountant is obliged to forward any missing information to ensure that tax compliance and filing obligations are met, or other interests are protected, and therefore the right of lien may be largely irrelevant in respect of the core accounting records of the entity. Secondly, in the case of an incorporated client, insofar as any of the documents held by the outgoing accountant constitute the accounting records of the company, then company law requires that these should be returned to the directors of the company. The fact that the outgoing accountant has not been paid does not affect either of the obligations mentioned above. Insofar as the accountant proposes to take a lien, this only applies to documents that have been worked on and for which the accountant has not been paid. In the case above, it would appear that the outgoing accountant is obliged to hand over the key accounting records that it holds, and to separately seek payment of the outstanding fees. The outgoing accountant should also respond to the professional enquiry letter. When we discuss the above rights and obligations with members who contact us, the members occasionally observe that the advantage appears to be with the incoming accountant. In fact, the Code of Ethics cannot override the obligation of the client to comply with legislation, or give the existing accountant rights that contradict company law. The message that members should draw is that their rights to refuse cooperation in the event of non-payment are quite limited, and they should organise their credit control policies accordingly. Many firms have a policy of limiting their exposure to large outstanding fees through direct debit and staged payment arrangements with clients. In the case of audit clients, the incoming auditor has certain rights to access information held by the outgoing auditor. The circumstances in which these rights apply differ slightly between ROI and UK, but are a legal right of the incoming auditor, and the application of them differs somewhat from the ethical obligations discussed above. If you have questions in connection with this issue or other practice related issues or dilemmas, please contact Practice Consulting and we will endeavour to give you the information and guidance that you need.

The role of the charity director is an onerous one, but what about performance? David Brady considers the characteristics of an effective charity director, and future challenges and opportunities. The implementation in 2021 of the Charities Governance Code poses important questions for the effective governance of charity boards in Ireland, including the challenging, and occasionally sensitive, review of board performance and the performance of individual constituent directors.  Compliance with the Code is, however, a baseline measure of effectiveness. Beyond the legal requirements for directors under the Charities Act 2009 and the Companies Act 2014, the qualities, roles and responsibilities of the ideal charity director are largely undefined. Are charity directors different? Is being a director of a charity really that different to being a private sector director? Directors of charities and private sector directors have shared experience in overseeing the challenges: of recruiting, motivating, and retaining the right people; of there being sufficient funds to pay salaries; and of competitors in the same sub-sector.  There are also similarities in how the business of the board is conducted; the calendar of board meetings, sub-committee meetings, and annual general meeting; the annual audit; the risk register; and—increasingly common—evaluation of the board itself.  In both contexts, the chairperson is often selected for their relevant experience, ability to guide decisions or bring order in the face of complexity or challenge. There are, however, factors that are unique to charities, including: charities legislation and guidance from the Charities Regulator; compliance with the Charities Governance Code; a mixed-income revenue model, whereby funding is derived from a combination of restricted-purpose and unrestricted-purpose revenue sources; a volunteer, unpaid board of directors; staff members who may be unfamiliar with private sector/commercial work environments and practices; volunteers, who assist the organisation on an unpaid basis, but who may feel they have a stake/voice equivalent to employed members of staff or even board directors; functioning as public benefit entities, with accountability to end users and the public in general, and the fulfilment of a public-benefit purpose;  service-level agreements with funders. None of this makes life easy for the charity director and can be reason enough for some to shy away from holding board positions.  Nonetheless, there are many experienced and qualified people who wish to give something back to organisations that have positively impacted their lives or to causes aligned with their beliefs and values — often donating significant amounts of their time. How good is good? As noted above, the implementation of the Charites Governance Code has heightened awareness of governance standards in the sector and the importance of the role of the charity director in achieving these standards.  However, beyond meeting base-level compliance with the Code, the debate on how to define highly effective charity boards and directors, and their ability to impact on the success or effectiveness of their governed organisations, has yet to commence in earnest.  In this article, I propose a five-level model for evaluating charity boards in terms of their ‘maturity’ or otherwise (see Figure 1), from a non-compliant to an elite standard. I suggest applying the same model to the evaluations of individual directors. In devising and articulating this charity board maturity model, I considered the following: How mature is a charity board? What aspects of a board’s conduct define its maturity, or otherwise? What is the evidence of a board achieving the higher levels of maturity? For example, is it aware of charity sector challenges and opportunities in Ireland and internationally? What does this mean for director competencies and performance? Is it possible to connect board maturity with the related, distinctive competencies required of individual board members? Non-compliant boards typically have a negative attitude towards governance. They are often unaware of strategic developments within the sub-sector and have a short-term funding focus, relying on basic financial information and outdated policies and procedures. They have no board rotation or succession planning processes. Their AGM processes are weak, and they do not insist on the maintenance of a risk register. Compliant boards adopt a tolerant attitude to governance; however, strategically, they are largely closed to sector developments other than matters of self-interest. Their policies and risk register are compliant rather than effective; their rotation policy is not fully implemented, and the AGM is limited to board members only.   Effective boards see the benefits of good governance and revise board and staff structures to exploit opportunities. They seek funding opportunities to support strategy and use risk registers to manage risk and plan contingencies. They ensure that board appraisals and rotation of directors policies are implemented. AGMs include the attendance of, and participation by, non-board, external members of the charity.  Progressive boards seek continuous improvement in their governance of the organisation. They are keen to benchmark their maturity against the boards of peers. They seek collaboration in new initiatives that reflect market changes. Policies are updated in line with current business/market changes. The organisation’s risk appetite is determined and defined, and the board ensures that its skills gaps are identified and addressed. Board rotations are planned and implemented. Elite boards deliver strategic programmes resulting in significant impact and/or funding. Board members and staff have a collective problem-solving mindset. The charity’s performance is managed using both financial and non-financial KPIs. At the elite level, the board employs long-term resource planning, promotes a robust risk management culture, and reviews strategy regularly. Succession planning includes pro-active identification of new chair and board members, as well as key executive management positions. They embrace and learn from occasional failure positively. Benchmarking director performance As suggested, the five-levels of maturity model can be applied by analogy to the evaluation or benchmarking of individual board directors. The articulation of competencies, or rather their absence, of the ‘non-compliant’ director is straightforward.  They are unfamiliar with the sector or sector trends. They bring no valuable experience or expertise to the board, are unfamiliar with governance frameworks, and generally blame others for problems rather than take responsibility themselves. The compliant director has an up-to-date understanding of the charity, brings technical knowledge to the position, is familiar with the Charities Governance Code and brings governance oversight to the organisation.  Moving up a level, the effective director will have served previously on multiple charity boards and brings valuable experience. Other board members will be aware of their specialist knowledge and draw on their expertise to derive solutions for organisational issues.  Their awareness of internal and external stakeholders will be strong and their input to decision-making will reflect this. The progressive director is a strategic thinker. In addition to having specialist knowledge, they bring a strategic understanding of the niche in which the charity operates and its competitive advantages.  Their leadership qualities are also evident from previous directorships, and they are skilled in multiple business and/or charity sectors.  Accepting change as normal and necessary, a key characteristic is their desire to introduce innovations to the charity’s operations, particularly ideas that are working well in the commercial sector. Finally, the elite director provides economic, political, and social thought leadership to the charity, in addition to the strategic leadership attributes of the progressive director. They possess the qualities required to chair either the board or one of its sub-committees.  Through a broad network of private and public sector collaborators, they are well positioned to plan for the sustainability and growth of the charity.  They set the tone of communication within the board, between the board and the staff of the charity, and between the board and the sector and broader public arena. The style of the ‘elite’ charity director is, paradoxically, non-elitist, collaborative and influential, with an evident social purpose. What next for charity directors? As well as understanding the characteristics, competencies and behaviour of the ideal charity director, and applying these when evaluating boards and their individual members, there are several critical issues that pose important challenges and questions for the sector as a whole: Should there be mandatory term limits for holding the position of charity director and/or defined limits for the role of chairperson and secretary? Should charity directors be paid, and if so, in what circumstances, how much, and under what terms and conditions? How can more experienced businesspeople, qualified professionals and members of the public be encouraged to hold board positions in charities? What can the sector do to facilitate this? What training and development, beyond the compliance level, do charity directors need? Should mandatory, accredited training be introduced before board positions are offered and accepted? What can Irish charities learn from international experience and best practice regarding governance? Should the legislation be changed to make it easier to identify, caution, penalise or remove ineffective charity directors? The implementation of the Charities Governance Code has given an important boost to the raising of standards across the sector and the priority must be to ensure this happens promptly and comprehensively.  The extension of governance into territory beyond compliance is an exciting and challenging move with long-term benefits for all stakeholders.  Defining charity boards in terms of their maturity, from non-compliant through effective to elite, and evaluating director competencies by analogy, will serve to both challenge and develop a trusted and vibrant charity sector.   David Brady is a principal at DB Consulting.  (Views expressed in the article are strictly those of the author.)

Originally posted on Business Post 08 May 2022.  As a country, we consistently ask the wrong questions about our industrial and investment policy. The current row over turf tells us much about Ireland’s body politic, and it isn’t a good story. Bad policy does damage, but we don’t have enough politicians with sufficient ambition for their constituents to do it a better way. Surely, the real question is why any citizen of one of the wealthiest countries in the world has to rely on turf to heat their homes. The wrong questions are also being asked about our industrial and investment policy. The focus, post-Brexit and the Northern Ireland protocol, has been our trade in goods with Britain and the wider world, but Ireland exports just as much in services. Services can only be provided if we have people to provide them. Investment policy in this country has traditionally focused on how we tax employers. Having resolved the tax status of the body corporate, it is now time to think about the body in the office sitting at the keyboard, providing the financial management, systems programming and business support facilities which fuel so much of our prosperity. We have issues with the retention of qualified talent in this country. This seems to be particularly pronounced in the medical profession, where, as an OECD study of health systems pre-pandemic rather dryly observed, a high number of medical graduates who qualify here will never work here. It is difficult to resolve retention challenges in any particular sector, but we have to slow if not completely halt the brain drain. While not every problem can be solved by throwing money at it, should we start thinking again about how we tax our working population? What might the effect on the workforce be if we increased the personal tax allowances available to those under 30, while reducing the personal allowances available to those over 50 by a similar amount? That would, in effect, frontload the personal tax allowances people receive across their lifetime of work in the country to ensure they are less taxed in their early careers. Such an initiative would be a long-term project, and history suggests that while it wouldn’t be ineffective, it may not be permitted to be effective. The last attempt at engineering the make-up of the workforce with income tax policy was individualisation – lower taxes for working couples – and that failed for little better reason than a political resistance to any form of change. There was no ambition for the wellbeing of working couples, or for the resourcing of national growth. Turf fire thinking is not a new phenomenon. Yet there are some grounds for optimism. There have been positive developments in providing apprenticeship opportunities and in education syllabus reform. One area where the government has made considerable progress in dealing with the challenge is in the granting of critical work visas for skilled personnel coming into the country. Waiting time has dropped from almost six months to, in some cases, less than a month. Many knowledge workers do not need to be physically located in this country. International tax conventions preclude the possibility of special tax dispensations for workers resident outside the country but employed by an Irish firm. They do not, however, preclude simplifying the whole process of calculating and offsetting the correct amount of taxes due between countries. Making administration easier can make all the difference in ensuring ready supplies of goods, as post-Brexit Britain is finding to its cost. The same holds true in ensuring the ready availability of talent. This time last year, Ireland was an outlier from the international consensus was when the government sought to protect the country from the loss of one of our key investment incentives – the 12.5 per cent corporate tax rate. The outcome was an international rate of 15 per cent that would not go any higher, while persuading the European institutions that it was tenable to run a tax regime with different rates depending on the size of the industry. But the other side of the international reform agenda, which garnered less attention was that some corporate tax revenues would migrate from countries of production to countries where markets were to be found. This would mean that Western economies such as the US, France and Britain would in effect be surrendering part of their corporation tax take to countries with large markets such as Russia, China and India. There is now little to no chance of that happening any time soon. Future success will not be achieved by attempting to mirror the patterns of the past. It has often been pointed out that money tends to flow to locations where it is most welcome, and the same is true of professional talent. It is not terribly long ago since we systematically impoverished our country by restrictive trade and industrial policies which did little other than prompt people with get up and go to get up and go from our shores. We now need to do exactly the opposite. It’s time to stop the turf fire thinking. Dr Brian Keegan is Director of Public Policy at Chartered Accountants Ireland