I noted a few days ago that the government’s justification for the U-turn on pay cuts for senior civil servants was to cite the international benchmarking carried out for the Review Body report that recommended the cuts in the first place. This seemed an unsatisfactory defence of this controversial decision.
Yesterday in the Dail, the Tanaiste put forward a new justification for the decision (link to Dail transcript here). The Tanaiste said “With regard to the pay and conditions of assistant secretaries, the review body on higher level pay indicated that the bonus was indicatively part of their salary.”
If I understand the argument correctly, the Tanaiste is saying that the Review Body’s report indicated that the salary that it was recommending be cut included the bonuses, in which case the government was not actually implementing the report’s recommendations in the first place but that policy was now consistent with the report because of the U-turn.
Well, here’s the Review Body’s report. It’s not that long and I’ve read it a couple of times. And as far as I can see, the Tanaiste’s claim is, well (… looking for polite term for it) not correct. I can’t find anywhere in the report where it says that the bonus was explicitly, implicitly, or, indeed, indicatively included in the baseline salary recommended to be cut.
In fact, there’s pretty solid evidence that the Review Body was explicitly excluding bonuses from the salaries being considered: The “current rate” salaries cited on page 5 of the report are base salaries excluding bonuses. This doesn’t seem to leave much room for the idea that the Review Body was including bonuses as part of the salary to be cut, whether indicatively or otherwise.
Is it really too much to ask for a for a simple and honest explanation for this decision, i.e. one that doesn’t rely on misrepresenting the report that recommended the cuts in the first place?