Ruairí Quinn, the former Labour party leader and Mr McCreevy's predecessor, gives his unique insight into the task facing the Minister for Finance

The preparation for a budget is a long and well-organised process, starting with the estimates campaign where each Government Department submits its proposals for expenditure for the forthcoming year.

Parallel to Departmental bids for resources is the process of pre-budget submissions that are submitted from the main social partners, many organisations and voluntary groups who wish to put their case for consideration.

The social partners are well established and their substantial shopping list is usually well presented and cogently argued. But other groups will, as part of their political exercise, prepare pre-budget submissions.

My first experience of this was in January 1995. I was appointed Minister for Finance in December 1994. I was confronted with a substantial diary commitment to meet more than 12 groups and to listen their submissions. I suggested to the Finance officials that, since we had already received the submissions in writing and they had been analysed by the officials in the budget section, there was no need to meet with the delegations.

I was quickly brought up to speed on the political realities of the "optics" of the pre-budget submission. Pre-budget submissions by the leadership of the organisations were as much an exercise in communication with their own members as they were an exercise in convincing the Minister for Finance.

I agreed, reluctantly, to the process but, because of the enormous pressure of time, concentrated the exercise into a very tight period. When meeting the delegations, I had a very comprehensive brief, prepared by the Department, which analysed the submission, and gave a description of the implications and costs.

In some cases, the dialogue was perfunctory and little or nothing of substance happened in the course of the meeting other than to reinforce the case already made in their own pre-budget submission and frequently rejected in the brief that I had received.

I quickly realised that this was a one-way dialogue. I was not expected to respond. It would be improper to argue the legitimacy or the appropriateness of the proposal.

To complete the public relations exercise, I watched a news bulletin in which an interview took place with representatives of a particular lobby group giving a strident description of the meeting. The sub-text was that the members should be left in no doubt about the strength of the impression made by their lobby on the Minister.

When the exercise was over, I questioned its effectiveness. I was appalled at the amount of time that was devoted to analysing the submissions by our own staff and how the product of that work was really of little value. I was also annoyed by the one-way dialogue. The Minister was there to listen and agree with the necessity for concessions. It was not possible to ask why such consideration should be given to one group nor was it possible to look at what overall benefits there might be in return for the general taxpayer, not to mention society itself.

I decided to change the system for the following year. Henceforth, all pre-budget submissions would be sent not just to the Department of Finance but would be referred to the Finance Committee of the Oireachtas. There, the members of the Oireachtas could, in public session, meet with the organisations. The purpose was to allow members of the Oireachtas question representatives of different lobby groups as to why special concessions should be made to them. The benefits of the sought-after concessions to the tax payer could be teased out.

My proposed changes for pre-budget submissions were not greeted with approval. My successor changed the system and reverted to what had previously been the norm.

The principle for making a pre-budget submission remains valid, provided it is not abused. Some groups feel compelled to seek up to 100 concessions. The consequence of that, in my experience, was that nothing was included in the budget that was not going to be there anyway from a political point of view.

In contrast, the delegations that decided to concentrate on a very narrow spectrum of demands and to focus their energies on making a strong case for a particular item were more effective and sometimes had a successful outcome. Pre-budget submissions are followed up by proposals for inclusion in the Finance Bill. The Department of Finance has a very effective system of analysing every budget proposal. The format of analysis and presentation is standard in all cases. The pros and cons are set out clearly followed by a conclusion and a recommendation.

I distinctly recall a proposal that started in a pre-budget submission from the Society of the Irish motor Industry (SIMI) - the £1,000 car scrappage scheme. This proposal went entirely against the grain of conventional thinking in Merrion Street. I can still recall the words of recommendation: "Finally, Minister we can find no good reason to recommend against this proposal."

Pre-budget submissions take up a lot of time of the organisations and the civil servants. The exercise is designed to keep the members of organisations content in the belief that their executive and secretariat are representing their interests effectively. In other cases it is for the optics of the wider public. It is not transparent, nor is it accountable to democratic institutions.

I believe my decision to refer all pre-budget submissions to a Committee of the Oireachtas where elected representatives could ask questions is a preferable approach. I believe good ideas, from wherever they originate, will find their way to the surface. Special pleading and self-seeking sometimes get there because the arguments are made in secret, calling in favours of one political kind or another. This process is not democratic nor is it transparent. I believe the pre-budget submission process should be returned to the system that I initiated and which was abandoned by my successor.