Paschal Mooney (Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

Like my colleague, Senator Byrne, I welcome Senator Quinn's initiative. I welcome the Minister to the House and I thank him for a very balanced response to Senator Quinn's submission. The Irish Timespublished a survey about a year ago across a variety of interesting questions. I refer to one of the questions which I will paraphrase. It asked the respondents to say in their opinion that since 2009 do they believe that politicians' pay, (a) increased (b) decreased (c) stayed the same. The overwhelming number - well in excess of three quarters of the respondents - said they believed that politicians' pay had increased. We know different, of course. Right across the entire panoply of representation in both Houses, from the very bottom to the very top and from the top to the bottom, Ministers, Taoisigh, Ministers of State, Deputies and even lowly Senators, have experienced something in the region of more than 20% reduction in their salaries. Also, we are the only group in the public service which has had its long-term increments abolished. There is a great deal of talk at the moment among the trade unionists and the trade union movement about the amount of money they received in recent times as part of the increment dimension to their pay. Ours disappeared, literally overnight, by a decision of a former Minister for Finance but I have no doubt that the current Minister would have done exactly the same in the circumstances. While I applaud Senator Quinn for his sincerity and for his motives in bringing forward this Bill, from his own remarks and those of Senator Barrett, somehow the implementation of these measures will restore public confidence and a perception that the public service is not coining it or milking it, I wish that in the real world that were true.

As one Deputy told me after the most recent cuts in our salaries, if Members of this House or the other House were to stand on Kildare Street with a brush and shovel and tell people they were not receiving any money, members of a cynical public, fuelled by an equally cynical media, would ask us whether we would be willing to pay to serve as Members of the Oireachtas. This general cynicism is not the result of the most recent economic crash but dates back to the year dot. Politicians everywhere are viewed as somehow milking the system and this perception will never change. I wish it would change and I hope the measures proposed in the Bill will go some way towards achieving that.

The nub of the problem, to which previous speakers alluded, is the following comment by the Minister of State: "For the most part, while the fees that are paid to board members could only be regarded as a disproportionately small level of recompense for the work that they undertake, such fees nevertheless enable the State to continue to access a wider pool of candidates for State board appointments with valuable private sector expertise that may otherwise be unavailable to it." This sentence caught my attention and that of other Senators. There is an old saying that if one pays peanuts, one gets monkeys. As the reports cited by Senator Hayden bear out, human nature dictates that some form of incentive is necessary. Even among the wealthy and the great and the good, we find that more than three quarters of members of the Institute of Directors in Ireland are unwilling to serve on State boards without some form of remuneration.

I have mixed feelings about the Bill. While I applaud and support what Senator Quinn is doing and understand his motivation of restoring public confidence in the system of public governance, I also agree with previous speakers, including Senator Hayden, that the principal issue is the manner in which appointments to State boards are made. Public cynicism has evolved over the years as a result of the common practice of successive Administrations appointing their own people, either on taking office or before handing over power.

I look forward with great interest to the heads of the Bill to which the Minister of State referred. I hope he will consider the many other matters raised by Senator Quinn. The Government refers to the need to have access to a wide pool of qualified individuals. The previous Government initiated a process that culminated in 900 elected members of local authorities being precluded from sitting on State boards. The Minister of State should consider the level of expertise that is available across all parties and none and from every walk of life. Local authority members mirror and reflect the real Ireland as opposed to an elite group.

Senator O'Brien referred to the Farmleigh forum of 2011 at which it was suggested that certain people should serve on State boards. I would love to know how many of the individuals in question have since been appointed to a State board and how many declined an offer of appointment. While I recall applauding the idea at the time, I have not heard anything since the offer was made. It would be interesting to establish how many members of the diaspora are serving on State boards. The bottom line is that people must receive some form of remuneration.

Senator Quinn's Bill does not refer to the role of chairpersons of boards. While board members may attend a monthly meeting, the role of chairperson is much more time consuming. Having served as the chairperson of Fáilte Ireland in the north west, I am aware of the time required for such positions and the small amount of money involved. I did not take the position for the money on offer as I was delighted and honoured to be given the role at the time. While I was informed I would not be paid, I received a modest allowance which was subject to taxation. It should be noted that the average figures provided by the Minister of State are gross rather than net, which means the average allowance of €18,000 works out at approximately €10,000. One can also deduct 50% from the other figure to which he referred. As such, the net cost to the Exchequer is small.

Perception was the factor that motivated Senator Quinn in introducing the Bill. As one says in politics, perception is everything. From that point of view, the Senator has done a good day's work. If the Government cannot accept the legislation, as presented, I ask that it give serious consideration to certain aspects of the Bill.

My view echoes the sentiment expressed by Senators Sheahan and Hayden on the need to provide some form of incentive. The Minister's statement appears to indicate that the Government shares our view that busy people who are prepared to give their time to the State must be given some form of incentive. While I have no doubt that people would still be prepared to give to the State if no money was offered, that is not the issue. The issue is that we need to have the broadest possible pool of expertise available. Many decent, honourable people who would give their time are not wealthy and do not belong to the business elite and, therefore, need some form of recompense for the work the are prepared to do. The payment of expenses does not meet that requirement because expenses have been drastically cut. I know from speaking to people that the expenses provided by some boards do not compensate for the amount of time and effort they invest.

While we have all noted the flaws in the legislation, Senator Quinn's objectives are laudable and morally correct none the less. If the Bill helps to restore public confidence in the system of governance and in parliamentarians and members of State boards, I would welcome it on that basis.