Richard Bruton
Question:1 Mr. R. Bruton asked the Minister for Finance if he plans to institute changes in the benchmarking exercise proposed for assessing increases in public pay. [24590/04]
View answerThursday, 14 October 2004
Questions (1)
Oral answers (15 contributions)
In the public service pay agreement under Sustaining Progress, the parties committed to engage in consultation on the terms of reference and modus operandi and the establishment and timescale of further benchmarking exercise. In the most recent agreement on the second phase of Sustaining Progress, the parties agreed that the benchmarking body will commence the next benchmarking review in the second half of 2005 and report in the second half of 2007. The parties agreed to review the operation of the first benchmarking exercise and consider ways in which, having regard to the experience gained, the process can be improved and streamlined. The parties also stated that the body should seek to ensure the optimum level of transparency consistent with the efficient and effective operation of the benchmarking process.
The membership of the body and its terms of reference will be agreed between the parties not later than July 2005. The parties agreed that arrangements for the next parallel benchmarking process will also be the subject of discussion between them. Consultation among the parties will commence formally later this year.
Is the Minister aware that this House had no say in the partnership arrangement? It was never debated here. We depend on the Minister and the Government to represent the public interest in this area. Is the Minister satisfied that the last occasion on which settlements were reached the process was sufficiently open and transparent? Does he agree that it was not acceptable to taxpayers who had to stump up €1.3 billion that they were not shown the basis on which the awards were made? The basis for making awards was kept secret. Does the Minister agree it was surprising in a system designed to compare pay rates in the public and private sectors that every instance involved an increase in public pay? There was not a single instance of a decrease relative to the private sector.
The benchmarking commission said three quarters of the award was conditional on new reform. Does the Minister agree the Government introduced no new reform package after the commission reported and that no union was asked to move beyond its established position in the period before the payments were made?
As I said in my answer and as stated in the agreement, the parties consider that the body should seek to ensure the optimum level of transparency consistent with the efficient and effective operation of the benchmarking process. As it is independent, how the body reflects this in its report is a matter for itself. In the last exercise, the body felt constrained in the amount of information it could provide due to assurances of confidentiality it gave when researching the data underlying its examination. In any event, to avoid endless debate and nit picking in the context of an exercise of this type, all information cannot be released. Some degree of selectivity must enter into the matter. While I take the Deputy's point that it would be desirable for the body to give more information the next time around, this is a matter for it to decide.
The establishment in Sustaining Progress of monitoring of real change by independent performance verification groups was a significant departure. For the first time, real change and modernisation have been linked to pay increases. It is a welcome development. I will seek to ensure in future that under Sustaining Progress all pay increases, whether general round or benchmarking, will be tied to an ongoing programme of public service modernisation. Such modernisation is a far better criterion than the previous relativity considerations.
Why does the Minister believe this is a matter for the social partners to decide? Is it not the taxpayers and we who represent them in this House who should have a say as to whether the process is sufficiently transparent? Why does the Minister put all faith in those who are sitting around the table as partners? Naturally, they will tend to approach this matter in a manner which fails to guarantee the level of transparency we who represent ordinary people expect. Does the Minister recall that the one strongly independent member resigned from the benchmarking commission because he felt the awards being made were insufficiently transparent and robust? Given this history of lack of transparency, will the Minister give leadership to opening the process to make it fully transparent for the benefit of all?
It is important to point out that we set up this body and gave it a remit and terms of reference which arose out of the discussions under social partnership. One's view depends on one's commitment to social partnership. I believe it has brought far greater progress in economic management and social policy than would otherwise have been the case. If one wishes to suggest a more adversarial model which will not necessarily give the same value for money——
The Minister is evading the question I asked to answer another one.
The Minister without interruption please.
I am not evading the Deputy's question. I am making the point that one either commits oneself to a social partnership model or one does not. I do not accept it is unaccountable. The independent body reports to the Government which decides whether to accept the recommendations. If the Government decided to walk away from social partnership, there would be consequences. I contend that——
That is not the question the Minister was asked.
I am trying to bring the Deputy to the realpolitik of the situation in terms of what is consistent with a level of transparency. I have said to the Deputy that we can learn from what has happened to improve it in the next round. The question is how to make transparency consistent with creating an operation which has public confidence among social partners. If the Deputy’s view is that the economy should be run by Government diktat and that if he were on this side of the House, the reservoir of public interest would lie with him, he has a far narrower view of how to conduct economic management in a modern economy than I have.
I would love to answer that and I hope the Ceann Comhairle will let me. The Minister is attempting to create a caricature of the situation.
In fairness, that has been a consistent Fine Gael position.
We have already gone over time on this question.
If the Minister insists on using his time to ask me questions, the Chair should allow me to answer.
I request the Minister to address his remarks to the Chair in future.