Comment: Improvements are hoped for but are not guaranteed, writes Cliff Taylor, Economics Editor.

Benchmarking is value for money. This is the central argument of the document published yesterday by the public sector unions. It makes a case for the concept of benchmarking and its execution by the benchmarking body - and it insists that the process will lead to better public services.

Its first key argument is that the old system of public pay determination had to change. Few would argue with this, as the old system was based on historical relativities and leap-frogging, did not encourage modernisation and efficiency, and seemed to spawn industrial action. Change was, indeed, overdue.

The intention to benchmark public pay was thus written into the previous national agreement, the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness and the benchmarking body was established in July 2000.

The document from the ICTU Public Services Committee argues that the body's recommendations were based on the most thorough analysis of the jobs involved, comparison with private sector rates and considerations of competitiveness and staff retention.

The difficulty, as has been well rehearsed, is that the body provided zero detail on how it reached the pay recommendations for the different areas. The ICTU document points out that the private sector would not have co-operated if the pay details it provided were published.

But surely this would not have stopped the publication of some explanation for the different awards and general details of the salary levels of similar private sector comparisons which were used? As it is, we have no idea why, for example, teachers were awarded 12.9 per cent and university lecturers 3 per cent. Or why, at a time when there were no general problems of public sector staff attraction or retention, the increases averaged 8.9 per cent.

This omission seriously damaged the credibility of the process. Put bluntly, if the taxpayer is being asked to pay more for public services, then he or she is due a reasonable explanation of the reasons for this.

What of the improved delivery of public services? Public servants have committed to industrial peace - although this would have been expected under the terms of a general deal - and will receive no general increases under the current round until next January.

It is the area of improved services, however, which is most problematic. There are some commitments, as the document points out, such as increased opening hours for some public offices and promises to co-operate with new technology and flexible work patterns. However, in many cases, little was extracted in terms of firm commitments.

Teachers, for example, agreed under a previous programme - the Programme for Competitiveness and Work - to hold half of parent-teacher meetings outside school hours. This will now be delivered but further negotiations will be needed to extend this. Surely a 12.9 per cent benchmarking increase should not require "further negotiation" on anything?

Looking at the Civil Service, a key barrier to change is recruitment and promotion rules, which limit outside recruitment and still tie some promotions to seniority. But here again progress will be limited. Many civil servants are receiving awards of 15 per cent plus and surely should have been pressed to agree a timetable for completely opening up recruitment and promotion procedures.

The verification groups, who must sign off that improvements have been made before the next payment in January, are left with a very difficult - in some cases impossible - task.

Perhaps the taxpayer will be pleasantly surprised with the outcome of their work.