The benchmarking process has been a back-to-front exercise, writesCliff Taylor, Economics Editor
By next Monday - or shortly after if they extend their deadline a little - the grandly titled performance-verification groups will report on whether public sector employees have agreed to sufficient productivity improvements to justify the payment of 50 per cent of the benchmarking awards next January.
Provided they give the green light - and in most cases they surely will - then the senior managers responsible will trigger the payments and the money will be paid, to add to the 25 per cent paid this year.
The Government and its supporters have been out in force defending benchmarking in recent weeks. But in truth the performance-verification groups are, to use that old cliché, left trying to close the stable door after the horse has bolted.
They can do some useful work by ensuring that the commitments made in return for the money are met - and blowing the whistle where they do not. But the commitments they are asked to rule on, unfortunately, do not go far enough.
The whole benchmarking process has been a back-to-front exercise and it is important that this is recognised if it is to be the way things are done in future. Whatever good work may be done by the verification groups, the conduct of the first two steps in the process - the drawing up of the report and subsequent talks on what will be delivered in return - have ensured it is a flawed exercise.
It has done nothing to build the confidence of private sector taxpayers that their tax euros are being well spent. Senator Martin Mansergh wrote in this paper last weekend that benchmarking was an essential component of social partnership.
It may indeed keep the public sector unions on side, but unless services improve markedly, it risks driving a wedge between the public and private sectors. And where then for partnership?
The first step in the process was the completion of the original report of the benchmarking body. Crucially, the body said that the calculations which went into its awards could not be published, as this would involve breaking the confidentiality of data from private sector employers used to compare with public sector jobs.
However, while clearly the body could not reveal specific details of pay in individual companies, why could it not have outlined in general terms the comparisons and criteria used and the thinking behind the wide variety of awards? While the much-quoted average is 8.9 per cent, the recommended increases range from a couple of per cent in some areas to 25 per cent in others.
This lack of transparency immediately undermined the process. Not only does it raise questions about the criteria used, it must also discomfort those who received lower awards. If I was a university lecturer, for example, awarded 3 per cent, I would be more than a little curious why I got so little and teachers - who get 13 per cent - got so much more.
However the back-to-front nature of the process was best illustrated by another section of the body's report. It "strongly recommended" that payment of the awards be made conditional on improvements in "adaptability, change, flexibility, and modernisation".
However, it said it was up to managers and unions to determine the agenda for these improvements, even though it was "the firm expectation of the body that real outputs will be delivered".
So the level of pay increases for all the different public sector grades was set before any consideration of how services would be improved in return. It might have been easier if the benchmarking body merely recommended what pay levels it thought were appropriate taking current work practices. But, by saying the pay awards required improved productivity - but not saying how this should come - it left the Government, as employer, in an impossible position.
Perhaps what came after was inevitable. In part two of the process, as the Sustaining Progress agreement was hammered together, public sector unions and the Government agreed what should be given in return for benchmarking. Charlie McCreevy has put much store on the promise of industrial peace, but surely this is part of the basic terms of all national agreements?
The deal's supporters have also noted that the deal ends the old relativities and relationships which bedevilled public sector pay for so long.
However, the size of the increases being given mean more should have been won in return. Rather than seeking a range of minor improvements in different areas, the Government might have better set its sights on a couple of targets.
One might have been promotion practices in the Civil Service. There are still a myriad of restrictions to merit-based promotion, including areas where seniority plays a part in promotions, where inter-departmental movement is limited and where - in the related recruitment area - outside hiring is restricted.
The Sustaining Programme text says "discussions will take place" to improve this and it does contain some specifics. But with many mid- and higher-ranking civil servants receiving increases of 10 per cent plus, surely a short timescale could have been put to move to completely merit-based promotion within the service and much greater ability to recruit from outside? Instead, this key section is littered with promises that "discussions will take place" and issues will be "progressed".
The same shortcomings are evident in the other two big public sector employers - health and education. In health, the terms were set before the Government made its response to the various reports on the service and again contain many areas where further discussion is needed - for example to ensure longer opening hours and a new performance management system.
Meanwhile, in education, initial flexibility being introduced on the timing of parent/teacher meetings relates to a previous agreement - the Programme for Competitiveness and Work - and again "discussions" are needed before further moves are made. New methods for delivering in-service training which cause less disruption to pupils also need further talks.
Fortunately, signs are the performance verification groups are taking their work seriously and will make every effort to push things forward.
Widespread criticism of the deal has put pressure on for the terms to be adhered to and for some meaningful improvements in services to be delivered. It could, however, have been so much better. The conduct of the benchmarking deal has put a serious question mark over the future of social partnership.