Sir, I have recently been reading an article by Professor Joe Lee on the arbitrary way by which we establish different rates of pay for different workers. As usual, he is both interesting and thought provoking.
Why, for example, should a barrister, listening to evidence at the Beef Tribunal, be paid £200 an hour, while a nurse in a hospital, responsible for the health, and at times the very lives, of her patients be paid less than £10 an hour? Is such a huge differential reasonable and just?
I understand that the fees for the Beef Tribunal were established between the Attorney General (a barrister), acting for the State, and the other barristers. When the State, later on, sought to question these fees, the matter was referred to the Taxing Master, who, I understand, is also a barrister.
I do not wish to question the competence or integrity of any of these gentlemen, but surely this whole system is manifestly unfair? Should a barrister be allowed to adjudicate on the fees of barristers? Quis custodiet custodes?
Since the State has done little to dismantle this system the Taxing Master still adjudicates on disputes involving legal fees I take it that the State sees nothing wrong with this practice. Perhaps the Government will now appoint a garda to look into the pay and conditions of the Gardai. Couldn't the ambulance strike be averted if the Government appointed an ambulance officer to adjudicate on ambulance pay and conditions? Will the Government now appoint a nurse to take charge of the new commission on nursing? Yours, etc., College Park, Corbally, Limerick