Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour) | Oireachtas source

I am always attracted to the Senator's arguments. The whole purpose of the Bill is to make a saving for the Exchequer in the pay and pensions bill. To cut pay in the commercial semi-states would not accrue any money to the Exchequer. One could suggest a new levy of an appropriate amount on these bodies to make them pay it back to us, and I suppose that would be possible. However, there is a commercial mandate for companies. We should have an open and clear debate about this. When I established a cap of €200,000 on public servants' salaries shortly after the Government came into being - that cap has been reduced many times, and we all well below that now - I put another cap of €250,000 on the salaries of commercial semi-state chief executives, which we have enforced. The Senator may be aware of the Hay rates. In order that ESB is not equated with Bord na gCon in its treatment, there is a hierarchy of boards and an appropriate differential between each of the chief executives. We can forward a copy to the Senator. We have proportionately reduced that to fit into the €250,000 cap and it has been a challenge to enforce it. One of the issues that has come up time and again is that if one is trying to drive a commercial mandate one needs people of commercial capacity. To be blunt, one will certainly get people to fill the posts - there is no difficulty in doing that - but the question is whether one can find the right people, with the appropriate skill sets, to drive what are in some cases multi-billion euro enterprises, while one is fishing in the same pond as other commercial entities. One issue arises, although it is probably not for today. The reason we have taken such a hard line on high pay is on equity grounds, because we know the pressure that is falling on ordinary citizens in this economic crisis. The problem that arises again and again is that of holding on to people of high calibre and quality in the public sector. It is something on which we need an open and honest debate.

I am not minded to accept the Senator's amendment. We need a commercial mandate for those companies we want to be in public ownership but to compete in the commercial sphere without being hampered. We had a similar debate when were talking in general terms about whether the commercial semi-state companies should come within the remit of the freedom of information provisions in the same way as companies. That fact that a company is in State ownership should not spancel it from competing on a level playing field with privately owned companies. I made the decision in respect of the National Treasury Management Agency because it is paid from the Central Fund and so the savings will accrue to the Central Fund, and similarly in respect of the Railway Procurement Agency because it is paid from the Exchequer. We can have a debate about whether all of the bodies should be excluded, but certainly the blanket inclusion of all is not warranted.

The other impact of the amendment, in terms of extending the provision to anybody who receives money from the State, would be a very broad blanket and would include charities and so on. I have strong views on the levels of pay in some charities, but I do not think we can say that because the State makes a contribution to any organisation we can control the pay scales in that organisation. That would be a bridge too far.