A story that was somewhat buried yesterday by the continuing (and well-justified) outrage over Israel’s latest abomination, and the frankly farcical ‘announcement’ of England’s World Cup squad, was the release of details of senior civil servants’ salaries.
This latest attempt to signal the beginning of a new, more transparent era in politics featured the astonishing revelation that at least 172 individuals are paid more than the man who runs the country. (I say ‘at least’ because this statistic does not take into account the £7,500 pay cut David Cameron imposed on himself upon taking office.)
The list shows that the highest-paid civil servant is John Fingleton, the head of the OFT (a non-ministerial government department) who earns almost £280,000. Perhaps equally interesting is the appearance of Sir Gus O’Donnell – the head of the Civil Service – at just 5 on the list, below the heads of departments that he oversees.
Other striking revelations include the presence of no fewer than 28 Ministry of Defence officials among the public-sector pay elite, and – not unexpectedly – the circa 140-30 gender split above this particular glass ceiling.
But does this list really tell us any worthwhile? After all, it identifies less than 200 individuals (most of them based in London) among an organisation of 500,000 employees working across the country. Also, it must not be forgotten that the heads of similar-sized corporations in the private sector earn much, much more than the sums revealed here.
Nevertheless, in times like these, anything that involves large sums being drawn from the public purse is sure to spark criticism and controversy. Why should 170-odd people, however talented they may be, be paid more than the elected leader of the country?
The rationale cannot be the need to stave off public-sector competition (an argument that is so often used to defend bloated BBC pay packets), because the end results clearly do not go far enough to achieve this on their own.
Another easy answer is that people work for the government partly because of a uniquely altruistic sense of job satisfaction; it’s a convincing argument, and I share the sentiment to a certain extent, but if it were true, why has constraining top-level civil servants’ pay been so unpalatable for so long?
Perhaps the true disproportion between the salary scales of senior politicians and their civil-service equivalents lies not in the lucrative deals offered to the latter so much as the slim pickings of the former. It is doubtless an unpopular argument and it would surely take a brave man to argue for a better deal for any MP, but it’s clear to me that ministers’ salaries – on the face of it – do not reflect the level and variety of responsibilities associated with the job.
On the other hand, of course, a hidden and very substantial supplement to any MP’s basic wage is the plethora of allowances and other perks that they all enjoy to a greater or lesser degree depending not only on their rank but also on other factors like the location of their home constituency.
Therefore, an obvious solution to this unwieldy pay structure would surely be to get rid of most of these much-abused allowances altogether, sparing only a much smaller fund for those with particularly long distances to travel. In return, all MPs’ and especially ministers’ salaries should be greatly increased to properly reflect their position within the parliamentary hierarchy.
If only the tabloid press and the public at large could swallow hard and see beyond the headline rise in salaries to read the finer print, this move would put to bed, once and for all, the controversies of the past few months. After all, the system of allowances itself was initially introduced in the Thatcher era precisely to obscure pay rises for MPs’ and thus to avoid the anticipated public outrage.
Ever since then, everyone both inside and outside of Westminster has been either kidding themselves or just plain deceived about how much we pay our elected representatives, legislators and governors.
What better time and what better rationale to clear the smokescreen, and what better way for the architects of our ‘new politics’ to put their money where their mouth is?
No comments:
Post a Comment