Written Answers. - Review Body on Remuneration.
Robert Molloy
Question:
43
Mr. Molloy
asked the
Minister for Finance
whether a decision has been made on the recommendations of the review body on remuneration arrangements of chief executives of State bodies; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
[3963/97]
The principal aim of the review was to make comparison, in the case of the main commercial State bodies, and other State bodies where statutory provision exists for the control of the remuneration of the chief executives, between the actual remuneration arrangements in place for the chief executives and the arrangements authorised for them.
The review was based on information on the salaries and other benefits actually applying to the chief executives, which was provided, to a large extent in confidence, to the relevant Ministers by the chairpersons of State bodies. Analysis of the information in respect of the bodies, apart from Bord na Móna, which was not included in the survey because it has already been dealt with, showed the following:
—In general, salary levels were in line with approved arrangements but there was a practice of giving some additional benefits without the approved rates being reduced by the value of those benefits, as required by the authorised arrangements. The additional benefits mostly took the form of extra superannuation cover, VHI cover, income maintenance and accident insurance, home security, personal tax planning advice, club membership and taxable representation allowances. The extent of the availability of these benefits varied from body to body.
—In the case of five State bodies, the basic salaries exceed the authorised rates, mainly as a result of misinterpretation of the arrangements to apply to the chief executives under national pay agreements. The practice has been that the chief executives, in common with all groups within the remit of the review body on higher remuneration in the public sector, are dealt with, in terms of increases and effective dates, under the pay agreements which apply to the public service. In contrast, the staff of commercial State bodies have come under the pay agreements for the private sector. That situation has lead to some confusion.
—As regards expenses, little came to light in respect of expenses which were unvouched.
The lastest general report of the review body on higher remuneration in the public sector has recently been presented to me and is at present being examined before submission to the Government for general consideration prior to publication. In the circumstances, it has been decided that the limited divergences from approved arrangements which came to light as a result of the survey of remuneration referred to above will be followed up in the context of the detailed consideration of the recommendations of the review body's report.
