Seán Fleming (Laois, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

Before we conclude, I wish to put one other issue to Mr. Quinn. I refer to retention payments, which are almost the reverse of severance payments. This matter is not specifically dealt with in the report. Remarkably, the Central Bank has a system in place for what it calls retention of staff in strategically critical roles, so it is the opposite. Instead of having a settlement when someone is leaving, there is a system in place for someone who is in a job and possibly threatens to leave. The Central Bank offers him money over and above his salary to remain in the job. This matter was mentioned at a meeting of the committee last autumn. Mr. Quinn would not have been present but officials from the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform were here and they did not seem to know the position. I think Mr. Watt perhaps indicated he did not have personal knowledge of the issue. However, I have received correspondence in the meantime between senior officials in the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform and Mr. Quinn's organisation on this issue. It shows that in the period 2013 to 2014 five people listed on the schedule I was given received retention payments to remain in their jobs. Most of the payments were in the amount of €48,000.

One was €48,000, another was €17,000, another was €48,000, another was €8,000, and another was for €48,000. Total payments to people to persuade them to remain in their jobs added up to €169,000. The bank probably tied them into a period and they were offered and had to sign new contracts. It could almost be interpreted as giving somebody an increase.

The witnesses might explain that because it seems a very unusual practice. I have not encountered it before. I know the bank is separate legally and is responsible for its own activities. It is not subject to Department of Public Expenditure and Reform public sector rules because under European bank rules it must be independent of Government Departments in the performance of its duties, but it would be governed by the financial emergency measures in the public interest, FEMPI, legislation. In the correspondence to the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform, the bank says that it is satisfied that these extra payments are in line with FEMPI. Perhaps the witnesses do not have the full information in front of them today, but could they explain to the public how the bank can pay people working in a public body like the Central Bank sums of €48,000 over a two-year period when everybody else is taking cuts under FEMPI and the bank is saying these additional payments are in line with FEMPI? If the witnesses are not fully comfortable with answering the question now, because it is a difficult question, I would be happy to receive a written submission. However, could the witnesses give me their general position?