Seán Fleming (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)

When my wife asked me why the chief executive of the ESB should get paid more than his counterpart in An Post, I said it is more complicated to generate electricity than to deliver envelopes. She was very angry with my explanation of the Minister's approach. Perhaps the Minister can provide a better justification for it. My wife, as a member of the public, did not buy it. She argued that the chief executive of the ESB sits at a big desk in an office with staff all around him. She asked what the difference is between what he does and what others do. She said he does not personally put oil or gas into the burners at power stations. Perhaps the Minister can explain his approach.

I also want to raise a couple of other specific cases. I do not accept for a minute that the chief executive of AIB, which is a nationalised bank, should be exempt from the income limit. can the Minister explain why he is exempt? I assume he will refer to the existence of an independent board of directors. Deputy McDonald discussed the case of the NTMA at length when we debated the earlier motion. I am keen to tease out the approach being taken with regard to hospital consultants. I understand that the contracts of many consultants were negotiated at the height of the Celtic tiger. As a member of the Committee of Public Accounts at the time, I said we would regret the deal that was struck. Even though I was a back bench Deputy in the Government that agreed the deal, I said it was a bad day's work. It was negotiated at the height of the Celtic tiger. The then Minister thought it was a great achievement to give lucrative contracts to consultants. She may have secured some improvements in the contracts, but the cost will nor stand up to long-term scrutiny.

My instinct is that the basic salary of consultants who have opted for public-only contracts - others have private work as well and there are extra posts - is approximately €200,000. Will those who have extra posts be brought back under the €200,000 limit? They will not be covered by the commercial semi-State limit. I believe there are many of them. I accept that yesterday's announcement was geared towards new people who will come into the job in the future. It will not apply to anyone who is there already. I do not know how for long the contracts of these consultants extends. Some consultants have contracts for life. I do not think there is a closing date on them. Perhaps they extend to the date of retirement. It could be decades before some of them are replaced. Why should we pay so much to consultants? The Minister's Cabinet colleague, the Minister for Health, Deputy Reilly, was vociferous in his defence of hospital consultants on "The Frontline" the other night. He spoke about the use of public hospital beds relative to the ratio that is allowed under these contracts. Is the Government's relationship with consultants and the medical profession too cosy? Perhaps the Minister can put my mind at ease in that regard.

I am worried about salary scales. I do not want to be negative. If somebody does a great job, that is the most important thing. If one is given a senior job and told the Government's salary cap of €250,000 applies to it, human nature means the first thing one will do - or someone acting on one's behalf will do - is examine how one's remuneration package can be improved. One might request a top-of-the-range company car that is changed every two years. One might ask about the expense, entertainment and travel allowances to which one is entitled. One might look for a performance bonus. I object utterly in principle to that approach. People on salaries of €200,000 or €250,000 per annum are being paid to do their jobs to the best of their ability. If they feel they have done a very good job, they might argue that they should be entitled to a bonus. Like most people, I find that abhorrent.

There should be no scope for bonuses in these remuneration packages. I would be far more interested in a clause that prevents people from getting their full salaries if they do not perform. It is like upward-only rent reviews. The salary is the basic starting point and everything goes up after that. Pension contributions can be substantial, depending on a person's age. People can have their private health insurance or VHI paid for them. My family pays €4,000 or €5,000 for health insurance. Such additional aspects of remuneration packages can be worth a great deal of money after tax, especially if one has a family. What will the Minister do about these remuneration packages, as opposed to basic wages? I compliment him on the start he has made. I do not expect him to finish it all on his first step. Perhaps he will come back and look at all of these things down the road. I suggest he should draw up guidelines on issues like those I have mentioned.

I was impressed to hear the Minister say that the Secretaries General agreed to the voluntary deduction yesterday. Perhaps he will can give us some anecdotal information on that. Did all the Secretaries General meet to discuss this matter? Meetings of what some people call "the real permanent Government" are rare events. Ministers should be worried if the Secretaries General are meeting too often. They have to make plans when they are dealing with a new Government. It is good if they had a meeting. That issue will be considered by the Committee of Public Accounts in due course. Perhaps the Minister can provide some background information. When he speaks about Secretaries General, is he including all the accounting officers in the various Departments?

I raise another issue in the context of this amendment. I concur with the Minister's decision to ask the public to suggest reforms, improvements and efficiencies in the public service. I live near Portlaoise, which is a public sector town. In addition to officials working in organisations like the HSE and the Teaching Council, there are approximately 600 staff in the Department of Agriculture, Marine and Food and almost 1,000 current or retired prison officers in the Portlaoise area. Although public servants are not in love with us, they are well able to tell us where there is room for cutbacks or greater efficiencies. They never say there is inefficiency at their levels. It is always at the higher levels of these organisations.

In truth, I am not being fair to them. Many of them did know that in many cases they were being asked to do things that did not need to be done at all. The Minister will find, if he taps into that resource, there is a wealth of information that can come up on efficiencies. People like taking a bit of pride in their job, they like to feel they are doing something productive, and they could help on that. I would encourage that and look forward to seeing that on the website.

On the second half of my amendment, the published record of all purchase orders is also a long-term project. It is not to do with the nitty-gritty of purchase orders but it would show up value for money, not only in Deputy Howlin's Department but across the Departments.

The then Department of Transport looked at this. For example, although I do not have the exact figures, it got information from all the local authorities which showed there is a phenomenal difference between the cost of reconstructing or tarring a kilometre of road in Cork and in Galway, Kildare or Meath. I understand most local authorities try, where possible, to wear a county jersey and give the job to a contractor from their own area if at all possible. With all due regard, I would say it would be difficult for contractors from outside Cork to get much work from Cork County Council. That is merely my instinct on the way they work down there.

See this speech in context