Should all public servants on more than £50,000 (or maybe £100,000) be named?

Kent County Council is refusing to name 16 bosses who earn salaries of more than £100,000 because it fears that the bureaucrats will be abused by the public, the Press Association is reporting.

They refused a request to name names after chief executive Peter Gilroy received "unwarranted personal comments" following the revelation that his £229,999 salary made him England's highest-paid local authority boss in 2007.

Alex King, deputy leader of the Conservative-led authority, said that the council had "learnt from the experience of taking a more open stance".

The Taxpayers' Alliance wants all public servants who earn more than £50,000 a year to be identified, and is using the Freedom of Information Act to get the information. If they appeal, which I am sure they will, I cannot see them losing.

Perhaps the figure is too low across the entire public sector (that is a lot of people, it could easily be set at £100,000) and there will be exceptions for national security, but surely the principle is right?

Comments

[Chuck Unsworth]

So KCC wants me to continue to pay for (or, employ) an unnamed official? Who do they think they are?

[Cicero]

The figure of £50,000 is too low, due to the sheer numbers which would be involved. But what comprises a salary? Does it include all of the perks of office and any hidden allowances such as we have found uncovered at Westminster?

[TrevorH]

"and there will be exceptions for national security"

My wife works very hard for the NHS - she earns more than 50K, I think she is worth it given the hours she works and her responsibility. Why should she be 'exposed' whilst others fiddle the cloak of security.

Indeed why should she be 'exposed' at all? Why should people who are hardworking and dedicated be victimised? My wife is an ordinary person, not a politician not a ruler or purveyor of political decisions.

[Mad Max]

Lets be honest. Absolutely!

But if you are thick can you be transparent?