Richard Bruton
Ceist:10 Mr. Bruton asked the Minister for Finance if he has decided on the membership of the public service benchmarking body for its next phase of work; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [7127/05]
Amharc ar fhreagraThursday, 3 March 2005
Ceisteanna (10)
Freagraí ó Béal (5 píosaí cainte)
I refer the Deputy to my previous reply of 1 February 2005. In the first public service pay agreement under Sustaining Progress, the parties agreed that the benchmarking process was the appropriate way to determine public service pay rates. They committed themselves to engage in consultation on the terms of reference, modus operandi, establishment and timescale of a further benchmarking exercise.
In the pay agreement reached in June 2004 under the mid-term review of Sustaining Progress the parties agreed that the benchmarking body will commence its next review in the second half of 2005, to report in the second half of 2007. Under the agreement the parties agreed to review the operation of the first benchmarking exercise and consider ways in which, based on experience gained in the last exercise, the process can be improved and streamlined. It was also decided that the membership of the benchmarking body and its terms of reference will be agreed between the two parties not later than July 2005. Membership of the benchmarking body has not yet been decided and will be the subject of consideration and consultation by the parties over the coming months.
On the last occasion, benchmarking cost the taxpayer €1.3 billion. Surely somebody representing the taxpayers' interests should have a role in deciding the membership of the benchmarking body. Should there not be a member of that body who is watching out for issues such as value for money and public service reform? I am not satisfied at the way this is being structured because benchmarking was charged with problems over non-transparency before and it looks as if this will happen again.
To answer that specific supplementary question, as stated in the national pay agreement, the parties considered in its request that the body should seek to ensure the optimum level of transparency consistent with the efficient and effective operations of the benchmarking process. How this is reflected in the report is a matter for the benchmarking body as it is independent. In the last exercise it felt restrained as regards the amount of information it could give because of the assurances on confidentiality that had been given when researching the data underlying its examination. In any event, in an exercise of this type, if endless debate and nit-picking are to be avoided, all information cannot be released and some selectivity must enter into the equation. It would be desirable for the body to give a greater amount of information this time around. However, that is a matter for the body to decide and the Government represents the taxpayer in these matters.
The Government did not do very well on the last occasion.
I disagree.
Written answers follow Adjournment Debate.