Seán Fleming (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)

Something like that. Perhaps I missed the reference in the press release yesterday to the case of consultants but I do not believe it was referred to. It was only when we picked up on it that it was suggested the Minister, Deputy Reilly, would deal with it separately. We look forward to it coming to fruition. Will the Minister, Deputy Howlin, have a role in this matter or will it be one strictly for the line Minister? In other words, after it goes to the Cabinet, which Minister will be responsible for its sign-off?

The Minister mentioned the role of the directors of various State companies. There is a problem in this regard in that the role of departmental staff in some Government bodies is utterly confusing. They are sent there to be the Minister's eyes and ears, in a sense, but on entering the boardroom, they are told they are there to represent the corporate interests of the organisation. I refer to FÁS and such bodies, and I am sure the same applies to ministerial nominees on the boards of Forfás, IDA Ireland, Enterprise Ireland, the National Roads Authority and so on. When staff move from the Department into these organisations, the shutters are pulled down and they no longer feel able to talk to the Minister because they now have a corporate responsibility under company law to the organisation in question. They are not public interest directors as such. Public interest directors have been appointed to the banks, but even there, they are limited in what they can do. When challenged on their role, they have argued that as board members of a particular bank, they must operate in the interests of that bank. Their background means they have an understanding of the public interest which they carry with them into their new organisation, but there is no mechanism to deal formally with these issues. I accept that there is no simple solution to this problem, but I am interested in the Minister's comments.

We will deal with procurement procedures in more detail presently. This issue was examined last year by the Department of Finance because there was concern, particularly in the construction industry, that large numbers of public projects, including the printing of some of the leaving certificate examination papers, for example, were being awarded to external contractors. An examination of last year's figures shows that Ireland is utterly out of synch with the rest of Europe in this regard. For instance, 99% of all capital projects in France are assigned to French companies, and the same applies in Germany. In these countries project specifications are designed to suit what can be provided from within the state. Such an approach is within EU law, and it is open to contractors from any other member state to bid, but it is nicely constructed to suit the French or German way of doing business. We have not copped on to ourselves on this issue. We must be careful to avoid imposing additional costs on the taxpayer, but we are out of synch with other countries which know how to live within EU procurement rules while ensuring as much public business as possible is retained within the state.

We are told that the provisions in this legislation cannot be applied to incumbents because of contractual obligations. Has the Government considered taking a test case in respect of one of these organisations? In the case of judges' pay, for example, I would have been inclined, at the time reductions were applied to the remuneration of other workers in the public service, to have instructed whoever was responsible to cut judicial pay and see what happened. Likewise, I propose that the same be done in respect of incumbents' pay and let anybody who wishes to do so take the matter to court. Even if the Government were to lose the case in five years time, the Minister would have shown the public he meant business and sent a signal across the public service that these changes could not be avoided. If the Government were to do this, no doubt the Attorney General and every barrister in the country would be up in arms. However, it is important to bear in mind that the Attorney General's role is not to dictate to the Government but to offer legal advice. Moreover, that advice is only one key element in the governmental decision-making process; it is not the only consideration. I would be pleased to see the Government doing what it knows is right in this case and facing the consequences in court. We might all be surprised by the outcome. A judge might well agree that there is a reasonable case to be made for an inability to pay, given that we are borrowing €12 billion to €15 billion per annum to meet social welfare payments, provide special needs assistants in schools and so on. The Minister - whether that is Deputy Howlin or another Minister - should go down to the High Court and plead inability to pay the wages of these incumbents. A judge might agree they are not affordable. Setting aside the legal advice, what are the Minister's views? Sometime it is necessary to proceed with certain provisions and face the legal consequences further down the road.

See this speech in context