Vol. 825 No. 3
1. Deputy Timmy Dooley asked the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport if he will provide the most up-to-date figures for fatalities on our roads in 2013; if he is satisfied that the necessary resources are currently available to the Road Safety Authority; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [54705/13]
The Minister will be aware that there appears to be a trend towards an increase in the number of deaths on the roads. While I am always slow to accept early signals on overall statistics in this area, it is clear that there will be a significant rise in the number of deaths on the roads over the course of the year, which is of deep concern to all of us. We have had a good process in this House of a joint approach by the Opposition and the Government, which also applied when the Minister's party was in opposition. We want to work with the Minister to try to ensure we can reverse the trend.
As of yesterday, the total number of fatalities on the roads in 2013 is 178, an increase of 21 on the same period last year. There have been 450 serious injuries as a result of collisions in the year to date. This compares to 487 for the full year of 2012.
The increase in this year's figures is of great concern. It is the first reversal of the downward trend of recent years. As the Deputy will know, the number of fatalities for 2012, at 162, was the lowest annual figure recorded since records began. There is no clear reason for the increase or evidence that it represents a trend. I met recently all of the bodies and agencies with responsibility for road safety, including the Garda and the Road Safety Authority, RSA, to ensure all necessary measures were identified and taken to reverse this year's situation and improve safety on the roads.
Earlier this year I launched the road safety strategy 2013-20. It contains 144 actions to be implemented by the various agencies involved to build on the previous strategies with the objective of improving safety, sustainably on the roads and making Ireland among the safest countries for road safety. I am also in the process of bringing through the Oireachtas the Road Traffic (No. 2) Bill 2013 which contains measures that will contribute to the road safety improvements. The new strategy was developed by the RSA, the principal role of which is the promotion of road safety. I am satisfied that the RSA receives all of the necessary resources and assistance it requires from my Department in carrying out its functions.
At this time of year I appeal particularly to all road users to be extra careful and vigilant for the remainder of the year and into 2014. All of us who use the road have a responsibility of care to ourselves and those with whom we share the road.
To be clear, I do not believe there is any issue with the strategy or the body of legislation in place. I can only look to the words of the Minister's expert, the chairman of the Road Safety Authority, Gay Byrne, who recently stated reducing the number of deaths on Irish roads was "unravelling before our eyes." In an interview with the Irish Independent on 12 December he blamed the increase in the number of deaths on the roads on the decline in funding to the Garda Síochána and creeping complacency among road users. He labelled 2013 as a "bad year" in recognition of the figures the Minister outlined. I put it to the Minister that the chairman of the Road Safety Authority is saying there is a serious issue in this regard which he is attributing to the lack of enforcement by the Garda. Gardaí will say they are doing the best they can with the resources available to them. Is it time for the Minister to enter more intensive discussions with the Minister for Justice and Equality to ensure the necessary resources will be provided for the Garda to allow us to reverse the trend?
I am very concerned about the increase in the number of road deaths this year, which is up by over 20 on this time last year. We do not know what the final figures for the year will be. It is still a possibility that it will have been the second safest year since records began, but we do not know this for sure. Interestingly, the number of road deaths is up, but the number of serious injuries is down. It is up in all regions, but it is significantly down in the west, for example. The figure for motorcyclists is up, but it is down for other road users. It is difficult to see any clear trend in the numbers.
The question relates to the resources of the Road Safety Authority. It has extensive resources. It also has significant capital reserves that it can dip into if it needs to do so. I do not necessarily believe there is a direct correlation between the level of Garda resources and road safety. For example, Garda traffic corps resources peaked in 2010 when over 200 people died on the roads. I do not believe, therefore, that there is a direct correlation, but I am keen to see greater enforcement. I always make this point in any interaction I have with the Commissioner or the Minister for Justice and Equality.
There is clearly a difference of opinion between the Minister and the chairman of the Road Safety Authority. Has the Minister had one-to-one discussions with Mr. Byrne recently? Did he have an opportunity to discuss his deep concerns with him? I recognise that the Minister is concerned, rightly so - we are all concerned - but in trying to find a solution or some path towards reducing the number of deaths on the roads has he had direct discussions with Mr. Byrne? Has he shared with him his belief there is no direct correlation between the level of Garda resources and the number of deaths on the roads and, if so, what was his response?
I met the chairman of the RSA and the outgoing chief executive officer six to eight weeks ago and we will meet again in the new year. We did discuss the issue of Garda resources and enforcement. We are both of the view that greater enforcement would be desirable, but we both accept that gardaí are under pressure in terms of resources. We did not discuss anything in terms of a direct correlation, but I am putting the fact on the table that in 2010 there were many more traffic corps gardaí and that the number of deaths on the roads was much higher.
2. Deputy Sandra McLellan asked the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport the position regarding the 7% reduction to the budget of the Irish Sports Council; and his views on the effect this will have on the delivery of front-line services by national governing sports bodies, and on the high performance programme. [54579/13]
The role of sport in Irish society is very important and somewhat undervalued. For example, the cost of detaining one young person in Oberstown is €278,000 per year. On the other hand, when the Football Association of Ireland ran the late night street leagues, the number of call-outs decreased by 49% and the cost was a mere €15,000. The 7% cut in funding for the Sports Council is an almighty blow which will deal a further blow to the key bodies in this area. Does the Minister believe it will set back development of sport in Ireland?
I am pleased to say we have been able to limit the reduction in funding to the Irish Sports Council to approximately 3% - not 7% - in 2014 when the council will receive over €42 million. We are protecting funding for sport as best we can in difficult economic circumstances in recognition of the many continued successes of our sportspeople. This continued investment indicates the Government’s commitment to sport in all areas.
The funding to the council will allow it to continue to support elite athletes through the high performance programme as they compete internationally. The year 2013 again saw numerous Irish successes on the international stage. The range of sports involved demonstrates the depth and breadth of sporting talent in Ireland. The performance of Irish athletes internationally both boosts the morale of the country itself and promotes our image internationally, as well as drawing tourists to Ireland from around the world. The funding also supports the work of the national governing bodies of sport in increasing participation rates and a wide range of programmes delivered through the local sports partnerships.
I wish to ensure that all people are encouraged and given opportunities to participate in sport and to enjoy all the benefits that sport can bring through developing a healthy lifestyle, which in turn can produce an economic dividend through reducing costs to the health sector. I am glad to note that adult participation levels are continuing to increase, as can be seen from the latest data available from the Irish Sports Monitor 2013 half-year report. The report shows a continuation of that trend with active participation in sport increasing from 45% to 47% since 2011.
I thank the Minister of State for his response. While I welcome that it will not be a cut of 7% but will be reduced to 3%, it nevertheless still is a cut. There has been a clear link, for which there is evidence from all over the world, between investment and success in sport. While I grant this should not be the only metric by which one measures the value of sport, there can be no denying how victories, such as that of Robert Heffernan, have been great in lifting the nation. However, such successes require funding that possibly will be hit by the aforementioned cut to funding. Paddy Barnes, Ireland's two-time Olympic medalist, has stated that without more money, Irish boxing is going nowhere. He stated:
It’s the Sports Council’s fault because they need to put money into the IABA in order for them to put boxing out there... It’s the best sport in Ireland but with the budget we get, we can’t even afford to send the girls away to the World Championships. [That is a huge issue.] ... We're training in a 1970s gym more or less and everything has to be modernised... We need the money. Without the money, boxing is going to stay the same as it is.
The money of the Irish Amateur Boxing Association, IABA, is limited because the money available to the Irish Sports Council is limited. How does the Minister of State intend to ensure that high performance programmes, such as the boxing programme, will not struggle but will continue to support key athletes?
The Deputy mentioned Paddy Barnes, who is turning professional, and I wish him the best of luck. Moreover, I hope he does as well as a professional boxer as he did with the Irish Sports Council, because he has received a substantial amount of money from taxpayers. Moreover, if there is one organisation that cannot complain about the current Government, it is the boxing body. When I came into office in 2011, the Government allocated €1.2 million to make sure facilities could be upgraded nationwide. This year, boxing received an additional €1 million, apart from the money it receives from the Irish Sports Council. Consequently, boxing is a sport the Government has supported very well. I reiterate that I wish Paddy Barnes the best of luck and in a few years' time, we will see whether he is better off than he was with the Irish Sports Council. I know of people in many parts of this country who turned professional but I am unsure how well they do. Nevertheless, I wish him the very best of luck. He did this country proud and we were delighted with him.
In response to the question the Deputy asked, the allocation to the Irish Sports Council has been cut by 3% but the overall funding to sport has been increased this year. While one organisation may not have got what it sought, I will provide the Deputy with a few examples. The Government has put €23 million into the sports capital programme, €10.3 million into the local authority swimming pool programme and €15.9 million into the National Sports Campus, as well as €1.74 million in current expenditure. Moreover, the Irish Sports Council will receive €42,496,000. Overall, the total amounts to €93 million, which is the greatest amount of money that has gone into sport. These are difficult economic times and yet the Government has done very well to protect sports funding. While I of course do not like to see any cuts in respect of sport, I always tell my colleagues in government-----
I will call the Minister of State again.
-----money put into sport is well invested.
I thank the Minister of State for his response. I wish to ask a supplementary question on the issue of rates. Both the Aviva Stadium and Croke Park received rates bills that were five times larger than last year, with rates for the Aviva Stadium rising from €437,000 to €2.36 million and those for Croke Park rising from €528,000 to €2.112 million. This issue affects the Gaelic Athletic Association, GAA, the Irish Rugby Football Union, IRFU, and the Football Association of Ireland, FAI, key bodies which involve tens of thousands of people throughout Ireland. These increases will amount to €3.5 million, which is a reduction of more than 50% of the funding these organisations received from the Irish Sports Council last year. This will affect the quality of front-line services these bodies provide in respect of training and programmes. Did the Department take into account the significant increases in rates, for which the IRFU, GAA and FAI would be liable when deciding on the cut to the Irish Sports Council? It certainly should have done.
On the question of rates, I note discussions are ongoing between Dublin City Council and the aforementioned three major organisations. To be fair to them, they accept they are obliged to pay rates because they are competing with hotels in Dublin by hosting functions and events. While they must of course pay rates, negotiations are taking place between the organisations and the local authority on the amount of rates payable and I believe some deals have been done. However, I reiterate the three bodies in question will admit they must pay rates because they are in business. They host functions and are in competition with hotels and bars, which are obliged to pay rates. As businesses must pay rates, the sporting organisations accept they must pay rates but the amount they must pay is a matter for Dublin City Council. Discussions are under way in this regard but I reiterate these bodies are in business and are competing with the private sector. I might add they are doing very well, as I have attended many events, functions and dinners in both the Aviva Stadium and Croke Park. As the private sector must pay rates, so too must the sporting organisations but I agree with the Deputy. Negotiations are under way and some deals have been done with Dublin City Council. However, I reiterate that while the funding provided by the Department this year to the national governing bodies and to the Irish Sports Council has been reduced by 3%, the overall budget has been increased and I am pleased with that.
On Question No. 3, Deputy Clare Daly is not in the Chamber.
4. Deputy Timmy Dooley asked the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport in view of the critical comments of Mr. Justice Michael Peart towards the Irish Sports Council during the proceedings in court action taken against the Sports Council by a board director, the action he intends to take regarding the issues raised; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [54706/13]
As the Minister is aware, this issue arose from a recent court case taken by a board member of the Irish Sports Council. In light of the comments by the judge, I would welcome hearing the Minister's views and learning what action he intends to take as a result.
Following the High Court judgment of Mr. Justice Michael Peart on 6 August 2013, I received requests from the FAI, IRFU, GAA and Special Olympics Ireland to conduct an investigation into allegations made against certain members of the Irish Sports Council, ISC. Subsequently, I was informed by the chairman of the Irish Sports Council that the national governing bodies, NGBs, were now satisfied there had been no interference or undue influence in the allocation of grants to NGBs. Nonetheless, I asked Mr. Paul Turpin, a governance specialist with the Institute of Public Administration, to carry out an investigation. His terms of reference were, first, to examine the Irish Sports Council’s procedures with regard to conflicts of interests on the part of members of the council and to assess whether these meet the requirements of good corporate governance and, second, to make such recommendations regarding improved corporate governance in the Irish Sports Council as may arise from the examination.
Recently, I received Mr. Turpin's report and having considered it, I have referred it to the chairman and chief executive of the Sports Council in order that their observations can be taken into account before I finalise my views on what actions need to be taken on foot of the report. Most of the recommendations are addressed to them, rather than to me or the Department. I intend to publish the report in the new year, as well as my response to its recommendations. I expect the appropriate recommendations to be adopted and implemented by the Sports Council and by its successor organisation, Sport Ireland. The heads of the sport Ireland Bill, which provides for the establishment of Sport Ireland to replace the Irish Sports Council and the National Sports Campus Development Authority, are currently being finalised and will be ready for submission to the Government in January. I will consider if there is a need to incorporate the recommendations into this legislation at that time.
I thank the Minister for his reply. Does he intend to publish this report as soon as the observations of the individuals concerned have been taken into account? Second, did the terms of reference include reviewing the process by which the original investigation, which appears to have been ultra vires, was undertaken? In addition, did the Sports Council seek the Minister's advice or direction before it entered into the process that ultimately was found to be illegal and in breach of the rights of the individual concerned?
On the first part of the supplementary question, the answer is "Yes". I will publish the report once I have to hand the views of the chairman and the chief executive officer. I anticipate so doing in the new year, that is, in January or February. It did not look into the circumstances surrounding the investigation to which the Deputy referred because the court was clear that the Sports Council was acting ultra vires in carrying out such an investigation. As for that investigation itself, I was informed by the chairman of the Irish Sports Council at the time that he intended to carry out such an investigation but neither my advice nor my approval was specifically sought.
I was certainly aware that was planned before it began.
Given the outcome of the court case, does the Minister not believe that questions remain to be answered by the chairman and chief executive who undertook this investigation, I presume at considerable cost to the State? In his response the Minister might be able to let us know what that cost was. Does the Minister intend to address the decisions they took in that regard?
That investigation was never really completed because of the court challenge that arose. The recommendations in the report I had commissioned mostly relate to the Irish Sports Council. Two relate to my Department: one on the issuing of letters when somebody is appointed to the Irish Sports Council very clearly setting out his or her role; and the second relating to the communications between my Department and the Irish Sports Council. Both of those recommendations will be accepted and implemented.
I find it very inappropriate and a conflict of interest for anyone, who works for an NGB or is associated with an NGB, to participate in Irish Sports Council discussions and deliberations regarding the NGB of which he or she is a staff member or to which he or she is connected. That makes common sense to anyone. A person who sits on a board that is debating grant allocations to the body of which he or she is an employee or member, should certainly not receive the papers and so on. All of that is in the report.
We now return to Question No. 3.
3. Deputy Clare Daly asked the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport the contact he has had with Aer Lingus management regarding the future of the airline; and his views on the State's 25% ownership. [54578/13]
I apologise for my absence earlier; I was mistakenly advised that I had the fifth question.
I wish to know the dealings the Minister has had with Aer Lingus in recent months with regard to the future ownership of the company and also with regard to a number of quite substantial changes that have taken place on some operational matters on the pension etc. I would be quite glad to get any such information because obviously these issues are overhanging the staff as we speak.
My Department and I are in regular contact with Aer Lingus from both a shareholder and aviation policy perspective. The airline continues to compete well as an independent airline and is due to start a number of important new direct services in 2014, including to San Francisco and Toronto.
In 2012 the Government included its shareholding in Aer Lingus among the possible assets to be sold under the State asset-disposal programme, but agreed that the stake would only be sold when market conditions were favourable and if acceptable terms and an acceptable price could be secured. However, circumstances favourable to a sale did not arise during the period of the EU-IMF support programme. The Government remains willing to sell its stake, but I consider it unlikely that a buyer willing to offer the right price and accept appropriate conditions will emerge in the near term. The ongoing pension deficit issue and legal challenges to the EU and UK regulatory authority decisions on Ryanair's stake create uncertainties for any potential buyer.
The Government will continue to manage its shareholding actively, with the aim of maximising the value of the shareholding, securing dividends and encouraging new routes and additional capacity where commercially viable. The shareholding gives the Government an important say in any proposal to dispose of Aer Lingus's valuable slot portfolio at Heathrow Airport and gives the Government the right to nominate up to three directors on the board.
I ask the Minister to expand further on this. In essence he is saying he would love to deal with it and is actively looking, but circumstances are not right at the moment to dispose of the final shareholding in this valuable State asset. Obviously ideologically I do not agree with that in any case and not just from the point of view of the market conditions. This was and is a key employer for thousands of people, providing a good and viable service. Over its lifetime it has served the taxpayer well and severing any links would be incredibly shortsighted.
The Minister referred to a number of key issues and I ask him to enlighten us, particularly on the pension issue. The Minister will be aware that Aer Lingus management even threatened to take legal action against SIPTU for having the cheek to organise a ballot when the union had assured management there was no question of any strike before Christmas or anything like that because of the stalemate that has been reached in the critical pension negotiations. Has the Minister been in touch with the company on that? Has he expressed his dissatisfaction that the management of a company in which the Government has a sizeable shareholding would behave like that towards its workforce? Has he encouraged it to engage somewhat more given the importance of that issue to the workers and also to the future of the company?
The Government remains willing to sell its shareholding at the right time, at the right price and under the right conditions, but they do not appear to be emerging at this point. When Aer Lingus was fully State-owned it was heavily loss making. Now under majority private ownership, with 75% owned privately, it is a success story. It is one of a few airlines in Europe that makes money. It is profitable, efficient and pays a dividend to the State. In my view that is proof positive that the privatisation of Aer Lingus was a success story for passengers and taxpayers.
The pension fund is a multi-employer pension fund involving DAA, SRT and Aer Lingus, which makes the whole thing very complicated. As with many pension funds, the problem is actually quite simple. Over a long period of time neither the members nor the company paid enough money into the pension fund to deliver the benefits that were promised or expected. The only solution that can ever arise to a problem such as this is for the members to accept fewer benefits than they had anticipated and for both companies to put more money into the pension fund. That is the finding of the Labour Court and one I have endorsed.
The Minister is incredibly ill informed on both counts. First, the problem with the pension situation was not, as he identified, one of simply not paying enough. In fact it was demonstrably poor management decisions facilitating early retirements and voluntary severance schemes over a long period of time putting strain on the scheme as well as outsourcing direct labour resulting in fewer members joining the scheme that caused the problem. The bottom line is that the company is inadequately standing up to its responsibilities in that regard. Instead of telling pensioners, deferred pensioners and active members of that scheme that they have to take a hit on that, the Minister might be better off telling Aer Lingus management to rein it in a bit and stop threatening and bullying its staff through use of the courts and other means.
With regard to the history of Aer Lingus, the airline experienced losses but it was entirely profitable pre-privatisation. Many changes had already been made and it was an incredibly viable company with substantial cash assets on its books at the time of privatisation. The Minister's assertion that it was privatisation that turned this company around is ill informed. Over its lifetime the company has been an incredibly successful Irish venture with a great service and an overwhelming net contributor to the Exchequer over its lifetime, and providing relatively decent, secure and up to now pensionable employment.
From my knowledge Aer Lingus only became profitable again in recent years and has only paid a dividend in the past two years. I am sure the Deputy will correct me if I am wrong.
It was never set up to pay a dividend but it did not cost the State any money.
It did. The Deputy will be aware that at the time of privatisation rather than the money from the sale going to the taxpayer, as it should have, some of it went into the pension fund at that time. When somebody sells an asset, the money should go to them and not to others. That is all history at this stage.
5. Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett asked the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport in view of the recent top-up scandals if he intends to investigate significant unexplained extra payments and expenses, due to be returned, to executives and board members in Dún Laoghaire Harbour Company; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [54608/13]
I have asked the Minister questions on the goings-on in Dún Laoghaire Harbour Company on numerous occasions since I entered the Dáil and I have not really got the answers. I have asked questions about the unexplained €19,877 paid to the CEO of the company by himself explained as money in lieu of holidays. I have asked questions about whether expenses wrongly claimed by a company director that were supposed to be paid back ever were paid back. We have never got a response about whether new employees were employed for the diaspora centre. There is a range of issues related to the pension fund and the treatment of the workers in the company. We have not received responses to any of these questions. What is the Minister doing to investigate these matters?
Dún Laoghaire Harbour Company, DLHC, is a commercial State company that operates under the harbours Acts. It is statutorily independent of the Government and not in receipt of any State funding. My Department is in regular contact with the company. Neither my Department nor I is aware of any significant unexplained additional payment or expense, due to be returned, to executives and board members in DLHC. As the Deputy will be aware, there is an outstanding matter in relation to the return of travel expenses paid to a former director in 2010 and 2011. The company has taken legal action to recover the amount outstanding. For this reason, it is not appropriate that I comment further on this matter.
In all dealings I have had with Dún Laoghaire Harbour Company, as with all of the port companies within my Department's remit, I have placed considerable emphasis on my policy that it should meet the highest standards of good governance. This was reiterated in the national ports policy which I published in March 2013.
Dún Laoghaire Harbour Company has confirmed to my Department that there have been no salary increases for DLHC management since 2008. The company also advises that no bonuses have been awarded since 2009. The company’s annual accounts which are laid before the Oireachtas and made publically available each year disclose the fees and expenses claimed by the directors of DLHC. The company has stated all expenses are rigorously audited by the internal auditor on a quarterly basis and that a full annual audit is undertaken by the company's external auditor.
I am due to receive the 2013 unaudited annual accounts which cover the full calendar year of 2013 from the company by the end of February 2014. The final accounts, when received, will then be forwarded to my Department's financial adviser for assessment and any issue arising will be followed up. The annual accounts will then be submitted to the Government and laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas.
In a question to him earlier this year in which I asked about the additional payment of approximately €20,000 to the CEO of DLHC, the Minister said the explanation given to him was as follows:
The additional payment of €19,877 relates to payment in lieu of untaken holidays or untaken leave. My Department wrote to the chairperson, whose term has ended, stating that we did not accept this payment of €19,877 and that it should not have been made. When a new chairman is appointed this matter will be taken up with the new chairperson and resolved.
That is what the Minister said at the time. When will the question in relation to this unexplained approximately payment of €20,000 to the CEO be answered? The CEO of this small semi-State company is paid a salary of €136,000 per annum, a car allowance of €20,000 per annum and board fees of €12,000 per annum. As I understand it, the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, Deputy Brendan Howlin, ruled out by order last year the payment of board fees to executives. Is the payment of board fees to the CEO which is no longer permitted being looked into? This is all happening against the background of staff members being laid off, pay cuts of between 30% and 40% being sought by the company, major bullying and intimidation of staff and a crisis in the company's pension fund. It has been suggested that while the employees' pension fund is in trouble, the gold plated pension fund for the executives is not. I would welcome a response from the Minister on these issues.
I cannot respond in any detail to the Deputy's question on the pension fund. It is a matter that would have to be raised with the company and the trustees. On the issue of board fees, the CEO does not receive such fees. In regard to the payment of approximately €20,000 referred to by the Deputy, that payment related to 2011 and was made in lieu of untaken leave of 38 days. I have corresponded extensively on this matter with the chairperson who is of the view that this will not happen again. The reality is that the CEO had 38 days untaken leave, in respect of which he was paid. The alternative would have been to allow him to take 38 days leave at the end of his term.
It is accepted that approximately €20,000 should not have been paid. Will it be repaid? The Central Remedial Clinic scandal of top-up payments which were in breach of the cap and which rightly caused uproar is under investigation by the HSE because it is a body that is within the remit of the State. Should this not apply to all semi-State companies, including a small company such as Dún Laoghaire Harbour Company, the CEO of which is on a salary of €136,000 per annum, which is more than a Minister is paid, a car allowance of €20,000 per annum and who has also been paid an unexplained additional €20,000? The Minister can correct me if I am wrong, but as I understand it, payment in lieu of untaken leave is not permitted in the public sector. The payment of €20,000 equates to 38 days leave. No one working in the public sector has 38 days leave per annum. To boot, staff at DLHC have told me the CEO did take holiday leave that year. This is strange stuff and there are a series of questions that need to be answered. The Government needs to take a more hands on approach to ensure we know the remuneration, including bonuses, being paid to top executives of the HSE and other public bodies within the remit of the State who are paid with public money in order that we know whether they are creaming it, while ordinary employees are being shafted.
Dún Laoghaire Harbour Company is a State-owned enterprise. It does not receive any public money and is not part of the public sector. As such, comparisons with the CRC are invalid. The issue raised by the Deputy relates to 2011, the year in which I took up office. As I understand it, the CEO was paid for 38 days untaken leave. The chairman has confirmed that this practice will not continue. Whatever about the amount paid, if any other employee had untaken leave, he or she would demand that they be allowed to take it or be paid in lieu of it.
