Originally posted on Business Post 06 February 2022.

There is no evidence to support the status quo, so why are politicians still waiting to make a decision?

The clearest signal yet that Irish politics has moved on from the emergency phase of the pandemic came from the Oireachtas Committee on social protection last Wednesday.

In its comments on recommended increases to the state retirement age by the recent Commission on Pensions, the committee essentially contradicted the findings of that very commission.

The committee said that the qualifying age for the state pension should remain at 66, with additional flexibility for long serving employees. This jars because Ireland has become accustomed to following the recommendations of experts.

Guidance from public health experts has largely shaped our response to the pandemic for the best part of two years. By and large, the technocracy of public health has dictated the political decisions made since the pandemic began, perhaps to an excessive degree according to some.

Nevertheless, when compared to other countries, and this is in no way to diminish the terrible loss and sadness of the pandemic, Ireland has fared reasonably well.

Success came from sticking to the advice from the scientists, and this may also help explain why the harsh restrictions and measures were more acceptable to the majority of the public. We have a tradition in this country that respects knowledge, and few enough Irish people suffer from a Michael Gove-style fatigue from having to listen to experts. Whatever else can be said about the pensions commission, it did not lack for expertise, having experienced business people, public servants and academics on board.

It is almost unimaginable that a recommendation from the National Public Health Emergency Team (Nphet) to the Minister for Health could have been, at any stage over the past two years, referred back to an Oireachtas committee to be contradicted. So, what has happened here?

Are medical doctors in some way more expert than economists and welfare analysts? Is the political system simply trying to reassert its sovereignty? Or is the pensions issue simply less critical or urgent than the pandemic crisis, leaving expert opinion on the issue fair game for challenge?

Considerations of political primacy and the perceived severity of voter pushback may have informed the committee’s report. Nevertheless, shouldn’t our politicians be more amenable to guidance from expert groups established to provide advice to the state?

Politicians must of course represent the views of their constituents, if only to preserve their seats. They may not always read these views accurately or be swayed either by a vocal minority of their own support or an opportunistic opposition challenge.

The Oireachtas committee came up with 13 recommendations on the pensions issue. Not one offers any concrete solution to the fundamental problem of retirement age – namely that we cannot afford the status quo. Their recommendation instead is to wait for the advice of the current Commission on Taxation and Social Welfare to give the funding answer. The Commission on Taxation and Social Welfare is another expert group. Will its report fall foul of yet another Oireachtas committee, which will recommend waiting for . . . what?

In a post-pandemic era, voters may well be less tolerant of poorly informed policies. It will be interesting to see what they think of Norma Foley the Education Minister’s determination to run this year’s Leaving Certificate in the traditional format. Political noise from the opposition was inevitable. This time, however, many voters may conclude that the decision based on expert advice to go with written exams was the correct one.

In the outcome of the Portuguese general elections this week, it seems that voters recognised, and then rejected, the ill-advised manoeuvres of the smaller parties supporting the previous Portuguese coalition. Those parties had not supported the fiscally prudent budget being promoted by the larger Socialist Party within the coalition, and this triggered the election. Now prime minister Antonio Costa, leader of the Socialist Party, will have an overall majority. One interpretation of this outcome is that when push came to shove, the Portuguese electorate recognised what needed to be done to govern their country well.

Over the course of the pandemic, both the 2020 caretaker government and the current coalition had the good sense not to treat the population as fools. People realised that restrictions were necessary, and then got on with it. Wobbles in adherence to the pandemic restrictions only happened when government advice was conflicting or unclear, as was the case with the approach to schools reopening towards the back end of last year.

Our government needs to continue the good habits of implementing policy based on expert evidence. The report of the Oireachtas Committee on social welfare flies in the face of this. If the results of the Portuguese election are anything to go by, politicians will bear the cost of getting it wrong.

Dr Brian Keegan is Director of Public Policy at Chartered Accountants Ireland