Vol. 533 No. 3
23 Mr. Higgins (Mayo) asked the Minister for Public Enterprise if she approved the pension entitlement and other financial arrangements for the recently retired chief executive of CIE; the annual pension awarded; the lump sum and gratuity payments awarded; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [8933/01]
As I indicated in my reply to a previous question from the Deputy on this matter, the payment of remuneration and allowances to the group chief executive of CIE is a matter to be determined by the board in the first instance. Under the provisions of section 7 of the Transport (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1979, my approval, together with the consent of the Minister for Finance, is required for such payment.
It is a requirement of the agreement negotiated between the board of CIE and the former chief executive that the terms of his retirement remain confidential between himself and CIE. While I was not a formal party to that agreement, nevertheless I wish to respect the terms agreed between CIE and the former chief executive.
(Mayo): Is it not a disgrace that an under the table deal was done with public money? Why was the confidentiality clause included? Given that the Minister's agreement to this was required, why did she agree to it? Why should there be a secret deal involving taxpayers' money? Is it not a disgrace that, where a substantial amount is given in a settlement with the chief executive of a company, it is not made public and it is not open, transparent, above board and available?
I would much prefer it were open and transparent. I was not a partner to the confidentiality agreement and the Deputy is incorrect to state otherwise. The board, on which there are four worker directors and various other people, agreed to the confidentiality agreement. The Minister for Finance and I had to agree the amount.
While I was not a formal party to the agreement, I wish it had been laid out in black and white. I also wish it was the only matter concerning past matters in CIE which needed to be laid out in black and white. However, I know the committee of which the Deputy is a member is working strongly in that regard. Therefore, I shall not go down that path except to say that, if that were all that needed to be made clear, how happy our day would be. I hope all the other matters will be unearthed.
The board took a decision that the salary conditions awarded to the chief executive would remain confidential. I was not a party to that, but I must respect what the board has asked me to do.
(Mayo): Given that the Minister and the Minister for Finance had to agree to the financial arrangement, why did they agree to this one without insisting the facts and details be made public? Is it not farcical that, although Parliament and taxpayers were not informed of a so called confidential agreement involving hundreds of thousands of pounds of taxpayers' money, the business sections of newspapers were in a position to state that the former chief executive received a lump sum of £230,000—
The Deputy is imparting information.
(Mayo): Yes, I am. It is important.
It is not in order to impart information.
(Mayo): Is it not ludicrous that the newspapers can tell us he was given a lump sum payment of £230,000, a pension of £90,000 and a gratuity of £193,000 and Parliament cannot be told this? Is that not ridiculous?
It is ridiculous. I did not give that information to any newspaper. I was not a party to the confidentiality clause. My consent and that of the Minister for Finance was required under the 1979 Act to grant the remuneration. I was not required to be party to the confidentiality clause. The board of CIE, which contains four worker directors and various other people, agreed to a confidentiality clause. I agree it should have been made public.
I hope the Deputy displays the same zeal he exhibits in this matter when the committee of which he is a member comes to unravelling and revealing all the matters which happened in the time of the previous Government, especially during the lead up to the 1997 general election when various matters occurred which ran into many millions of pounds.
(Mayo): Does the Minister not recall that I raised that issue on 19 October and does she not agree that I have not displayed any lack of zeal in that regard?
The Deputy is right. I agree.
(Mayo): My zeal will not be found wanting. I have nothing against Mr. McDonnell but the manner in which this deal was done. A secret deal was done whereby a substantial amount of taxpayers' money was given to the chief executive with no public accountability to the House. Why was Mr. McDonnell bought out ahead of time? Given that the Minister's approval is sought for such deals, will she insist that there will not be any confidentiality clauses in such deals in future involving public money or where the State pays for chief executives of State companies or for people in other public positions? I do not see the logic or justification for such clauses.
It is important I put on record that this was not underhand and was done at a board meeting with each member present. They did not decide on the amount behind closed doors. Other matters were decided upon in that fashion previously, but this was not done in that manner. It was done in the presence of the full board membership.
I cannot answer why Mr. McDonnell sought to leave CIE. I imagine the matters with which the Deputy's committee is engaged may have something to do with it, but I cannot hazard a guess.
I spoke with the Secretary General of my Department and said it was not correct that, while it was a deal done in full view of the board, the board, Mr. McDonnell and the chairman agreed it would be confidential. I agree with the Deputy that it should have been made public.
