Bertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)

The OECD review was undertaken last year. The work has been going on for the better part of a year. The report is not simply on the public service. It is the first comprehensive review ever undertaken on the public service as a system. It is holistic and is a service-wide assessment. It will identify many things but it has two main areas in its remit. It will examine how the Irish public service compares with other services that are recognised as representing good practice in various aspects of public management, using the unique insights of the OECD in its field. However good we are in areas, other people are good in other areas and we should always examine how we can improve services and systems across Departments and agencies.

The second issue under consideration is how the different parts of our system relate to each other, for example, the relationship between central and local government and how objectives are translated into actions. It is examining the health and education sectors to see if there are better ways in which common issues such as child care and social inclusion can be tackled.

As I mentioned, a large number of groups are involved on a consultative basis and are giving their views. Some are international figures, including people from OECD headquarters and others who can bring fresh thinking, and they are talking to the leaders in the field. They have also engaged with the political system and have been talking to the chairpersons of various committees of the House, such as the Committee of Public Accounts and the health and education committees.

Individual sectors and parts of the public service have been reviewed in the past but last year it was felt it was time to take stock of the system as a whole with a view to making recommendations on the future direction of the public service in supporting the Government's drive for delivery of world class services and contributing to the sustainable national competitive advantage. Deputy Kenny would have seen the research findings of a detailed survey of 3,500 patients in the hospital system published some weeks ago. This showed clearly the satisfaction of patients with the health service.

Benchmarking was introduced to replace relativities and numerous old systems. It was made clear at the beginning that benchmarking was never intended to be a once off exercise, but a process that would be repeated at appropriate intervals and that is happening at present. Benchmarking is an exercise that examines the pay and conditions of similar jobs in the public and private sectors with a view to determining whether the pay levels of public service jobs should be altered. In this way, public service pay can be determined by comparison to real and competitive market demands. It is necessary to ensure that the public service can continue to attract and retain a high calibre of staff with necessary skills to provide an excellent service to the public.

I believe benchmarking is a substantial improvement on the old pay determinants in a system that operated from 1946 and was based on relativities. If one grade got an increase for whatever reason, that was followed by other grades leapfrogging and catching up based on no factual outcome. This was the system that existed for the better part of 60 years and it led to industrial disputes and unrest across the public service from 1946.

The second benchmarking group was established in January of last year. It is chaired by Dan O'Keeffe, SC, and is due to report at the end of this year. It comprises a number of eminent individuals from the public and private sectors and from the world of academia and will undertake a fundamental examination of the pay of public servants vis-À-vis the private sector. There are no predetermined outcomes. If there is little movement in the private sector salaries, then the same will happen to public service salaries.

In response to the question from Deputy Kenny, the benchmarking body seeks to ensure the optimum level of transparency in carrying out its work. Following issues that were raised after the last benchmarking process, we made the point on the need to ensure the process is consistent, effective and transparent. As has been pointed out to me by all the people involved, there is a need to handle some of the information in a confidential way in an exercise of this nature. The body can only do its job if it receives the information from the private sector and the system is based on using confidential commercial information. It cannot publish everything it receives, but it is conscious of being as transparent as possible. I understand the benchmarking body will consider practical steps to examine the level of transparency, having regard to its remit.

It is not true that previously the productivity measures to be delivered by public servants were not validated. In each Department and area they were validated and the benchmarking body reported on that basis. Although I accept there were issues in some areas, in most areas the body produced a very detailed report.

See this speech in context