The alacrity with which the Coalition Government agreed to implement proposals by the Review Body on Higher Remuneration in the Public Sector was unseemly. Especially as the pay of ministers and politicians was at issue. The manner in which the announcement was made - in the shadow of the Fine Gael leadership challenge and the Dail debate on Mr Liam Lawlor - was clearly designed to draw minimum public attention. All special pay awards recommended by the review body, ranging as high as 33 per cent, are now to be implemented by April 2002. Those of 10 per cent or less will be paid by next March. These will, of course, be in addition to the pay terms agreed for everybody else under the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness (PPF). In moving to implement the awards, there was none of the foot-dragging that marked the Government's response to other special pay claims. It would appear that the pay demands of top civil and public servants, the judiciary, hospital consultants and politicians fall into a special, fast-track category. Benchmarking for other groups of people, such as teachers and those in the lower echelons of the public service, will not take effect until summer 2002.
The handling of the report from the Review Body - it evaluates top State salaries every four years - will underpin a growing public perception that a two-tier society is developing. The increasing wealth of the economy and rising business profits have fed into higher corporate salaries at senior executive level. Charges for services in key professions within the private sector have also risen significantly. It would seem that the growing gap between income levels within the private sector is now to be perpetuated within the public service. In view of these developments, people on low wages can hardly be expected to hold the line on the PPF while their bosses enjoy large increases. The Civil and Public Services Union, representing an estimated 13,000 clerical grade officers, will ballot its members later this month on withdrawal from the PPF. Making its announcement, the Government was sufficiently abashed to note there were "parallels" between the approach adopted by the Review Body and the benchmarking process that would consider the pay of public servants generally. The reference was clearly designed as an indication of good faith and a signal of willingness to raise pay levels further down the scale. Having lectured ASTI teachers and the general public on the need for wage restraint, in order to protect the Exchequer and the competitiveness of the economy, Ministers are now in a weak position.
The reasons given for granting pay awards of 18 and 30 per cent to TDs and Senators may be questioned, but the proposed salaries of £46,506 and £32,554 are hardly excessive. The changes do, however, raise the issue of the expenses paid to politicians. It cannot be healthy when the expenses of an Oireachtas member can amount to considerably more than the official salary level. The arrangement was intended to compensate for poor basic pay. But that position no longer obtains.