Skip to main content
Normal View

Semi-State Bodies Remuneration

Dáil Éireann Debate, Wednesday - 28 June 2017

Wednesday, 28 June 2017

Questions (23)

Imelda Munster

Question:

23. Deputy Imelda Munster asked the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport the position regarding the discrepancy in his Department in which seven chief executive officers, CEOs, of semi-State bodies have been in situ for longer than the seven-year limit deemed appropriate in codes of practice for the governance of State bodies, some of whom are employed under contracts of indefinite duration; whether he has considered amending the Protection of Employees (Fixed Term Work) Act 2003 in respect of CEOs of semi-State bodies; the way in which he plans to remedy this anomaly; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [30242/17]

View answer

Oral answers (12 contributions)

I ask the Minister to provide clarity on the discrepancy in his Department in which seven CEOs of semi-State bodies have been in situ for longer than the seven-year limit deemed appropriate in the codes of practice for the governance of State bodies, some of whom are employed under contracts of indefinite duration, whether he has considered amending the Protection of Employees (Fixed Term Work) Act 2003 as it relates to CEOs of semi-State bodies, how he proposes to remedy this anomaly, and if he will make a statement on the matter.

I thank Deputy Munster for this question, which was due for a run at the Joint Committee on Finance, Public Expenditure and Reform, and Taoiseach recently but which for legal reasons was not. I am happy to answer as far as I can here and hope the reply will be full and adequate.

The remuneration of chief executive officers of commercial State bodies had historically come within the remit of the Review Body on Higher Remuneration in the Public Sector established in 1969. A major feature of the review body's Report No. 37 in 1996 was its recommendations for the introduction of new  remuneration arrangements predicated on the introduction of a fundamental change in the nature of the contracts, including tenure, for such positions.

 As a result of the above, the policy adopted by the Government was that statutory positions such as CEOs of State bodies should serve for a limited term, thereby ensuring that top management in the body benefits from fresh perspectives and new thinking.  Arising from this, Government policy was that CEOs of State agencies should be engaged on contracts not exceeding seven years. Initially, the standard CEO template contract, which is drawn up by the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform, was an annual rolling contract for a maximum term of seven years. Subsequently, based on legal advice provided to the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, the standard template for CEO contracts in commercial State companies was changed to provide for an initial contract period of three years and on expiry, at the discretion of the board, a further single contract period of up to four years.

With regard to the CEOs of agencies within the remit of my Department, there have been a number of challenges taken under the Protection of Employees (Fixed Term Work) 2003 Act, or assertions of a right to a contract of indefinite duration as a result of that Act, which have resulted in a contract of indefinite duration being confirmed. Where CEOs have challenged or threatened to challenge the nature of the fixed-term contracts, it is ultimately a contractual and legal matter between the board and the CEO. My role and that of the Department is to provide the shareholder view. In the addition to these CEOs, there are also two CEOs who are on contracts to retirement age.

The 2003 Act does not come within my statutory functions but my Department has highlighted previously the potential conflict between the Act and the nature of the contracts concluded with CEOs. This has been taken on board and the standard template contract currently provided to new chief executives is for a single fixed-term contract of not more than seven years and not normally less than five years. 

Members all know that for many years, the Minister has been very outspoken about his disdain for and intolerance of cronyism, clientelism and jobs-for-the-boys appointments. We have some guidelines when it comes to governance of semi-State bodies to ensure that semi-State bodies are governed properly right across the public sector. However, the Government is issuing guidelines and contracts that are not in line with the 2003 Act. There is an anomaly there which allows for loopholes. Why has the Minister worked so hard on changing the manner in which judges are appointed and yet he ignores very poor governance in an area governed by his own Department? Some of these CEOs have been in their positions for 15 years. Some have contracts of indefinite duration. The guidelines are not worth the paper they are written on.

They are not worth a fiddler's. Why has the Minister chosen to ignore it thus far?

I will put my hands up for what happened in the past if the Deputy wants me to. I am quite happy to do so. I am not happy with what has been happening here. It is quite obvious that it is unacceptable. What happened has been remedied in that new chief executives now get a single fixed term of anywhere between five and seven years. We have to rely on the findings of the courts, which we have done, the Workplace Relations Commission, WRC or the Labour Court. Virtually every time a chief executive officer, CEO, took a case it was found in their favour and they were awarded contracts of indefinite duration which they were given if objective grounds had not been given to them for getting a full-time contract. They seem to have won. That is in the past. That is not acceptable. We did run ourselves into a lot of trouble as a result. There are many cases which the Deputy has pointed out. I think she will find this is now being resolved satisfactorily and if not I will move on it.

Does the Minister agree that overall it is blatant bad governance and does he accept that until legislation is changed the guidelines are not worth the paper they are written on because there are loopholes? The Minister knows that legislation supersedes guidelines and that no contract supersedes law. Will he amend the underpinning legislation for semi-State chief executives? He can change the law, as he is doing now in respect of the judges. Would he amend section 30 of the Harbours Act 1996? That would stamp it out once and for all. It is quite a simple thing to do and it would be sorted if there was a will to do that.

The Deputy has made a good case. She is correct to point out what happened retrospectively and it was wrong. If she wants me to take the blame for what happened before my tenure I will take it willingly. I have no problem with that. The Deputy is asking me to change the law now specifically to address this problem. I will not do it now because we have made new rules for between five and seven years.

They are guidelines.

If those rules do not work-----

They are guidelines.

If they are contested for some reason, although I cannot see why they should be because these are single fixed term contracts, not three and four as we had before, I will seriously consider changing the Act.

Legislation supersedes guidelines.

I want to see whether this works or not. I will personally monitor those and report back to the Deputy. If she sees any sign of this happening she can flag it to me.

Top
Share