Oireachtas Joint and Select Committees

Thursday, 22 June 2017

Select Committee on Finance, Public Expenditure and Reform, and Taoiseach

National Shared Services Office Bill 2016: Committee Stage

11:10 am

Photo of Patrick O'DonovanPatrick O'Donovan (Limerick County, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

Deputy Cullinane is suggesting oversight. While I do not have a difficulty per sewith that, remuneration for board members as proposed in the Bill forms a wider part of the Government's public service pay policy and is set in the context of the relevant qualifications, duties and responsibilities of the board members as they apply across the entire public sector.

Government pay policy is the responsibility of the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform who will be best placed to establish remuneration rates for board members for the body as for other bodies established by legislation elsewhere. It is not clear that the committee would be the best place to consider and review, in isolation from wider Government policy and practice, the remuneration rates established by the Minister for a particular body as proposed.

The biggest concern is precedent and where it would stop in respect of other bodies and whether the remuneration of the board members of every public board and body would be established by the sectoral committees within the Houses of the Oireachtas. The committee could very well be ground to a halt. It is the reserve of the Minister on that basis. It is also noted that section 17(8) states: " In the performance of his or her duties under this section, the chief executive shall not question or express an opinion on the merits of any policy of the Government or a Minister of the Government or on the merits of the objectives of such a policy." Accordingly, it would appear incongruous for the committee to review remuneration rates established as part of Government pay policy without having the benefit of the background, reasons, context and policy. I do not disagree with what the Deputy is trying to do but not only would it set a precedent for other boards but it could establish a precedent for difficulties or perceived difficulties in the wider public sector. On that basis, I cannot accept the amendment but I completely accept the tenet of what the Deputy is trying to do.

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.