Bertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)

The second public benchmarking body was established in January 2006. It is chaired by Mr. Dan O'Keeffe, SC, and he is committed to finishing the work at the end of 2007. I cannot say whether it will be submitted to the Department of Finance at the end of the year or early next year, but that is the projected timescale.

I saw the reports over the weekend and the Tánaiste and Minister for Finance, Deputy Brian Cowen, tells me we are not at that stage and that anything written on this issue at this stage is totally speculative. It is too early to make that judgment.

It is important to bear in mind a key development under both processes; the present one and its predecessor. Benchmarking is a measurement of progress. The present arrangement is better than the old system because it is accepted that pay increases must be evidence based. In the case of benchmarking, the evidence will be obtained by measuring public service jobs against norms in the private sector and comparable jobs elsewhere. I hope the verification groups will be more transparent this time. I accepted the arguments made the last time. However, much of the information submitted to the first benchmarking body was of a confidential nature and was market sensitive. Those who provided it to the benchmarking body did not want that information revealed in verification reports that would undermine the raison d'être for the study. Comparisons cannot be made without the relevant information, which is concerned with bonus and ancillary schemes and benefits, and those submitting such data do not want them published because it might damage the interests of their private sector clients. This is how that element of secrecy arises.

Also the benchmarking body, last time, did not consider it helpful to publish all the reports in full. It was thought it might lead to all types of debates and arguments over how, as an independent body, it came to make its determination. Just like before, this time some people will do well, they will be happy and nothing further will be heard about them. Others will be in-between and there may be some talk about how they have done. Inevitably, those who do badly will hit the roof. For those reasons the body considers the best way to deal with matters, in the interests of industrial relations harmony and human resource concerns, is not to publish its reports in full.

Having said that, we made the point that matters must be as transparent as possible and that verifiable performance groups should be able to work on the basis of providing as much detail as they can. The eminent people who are members of the body are conscious of these concerns. However, I cannot determine from the outside precisely how the body will do its business, but its members know what the Government has asked them to do.

See this speech in context