Kevin Humphreys (Dublin South East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 67: To ask the Minister for Finance, further to Parliamentary Question No. 98 of 7 June 2011, the reason he refused to release information on the bonuses awarded to staff of the National Assets Management Agency, part of the National Treasury Management Agency, yet proceeded to release the same data on bonuses in reply to Parliamentary Question No. 712 of 29 June 2011; if there is a specific policy in his Department as to the information is provided to particular Members of Dáil Éireann; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [21636/11]

Michael Noonan (Limerick City, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I assume the Deputy is referring to Parliamentary Question No. 97 of 7 June 2011, which asked if I would provide an itemised list of all bonuses paid to staff of the National Asset Management Agency since its establishment. In my reply, I explained that all officers of the National Asset Management Agency (NAMA) are employees of the National Treasury Management Agency (NTMA) and that the remuneration packages of all NTMA staff are negotiated on an individual contract basis and are confidential. This is the current factual position.

Parliamentary Question No. 71 of 29 June 2011 asked for more general information on bonuses paid at an NTMA-wide level, specifically details of the number of persons employed by the National Treasury Management Agency, including NAMA, who received bonus payments in 2010, the overall amount that was paid and the average payment to the employees in question. In my reply, I stated that the average payment made by the NTMA in February 2011 in respect of performance in 2010 was €7,681, that the overall amount paid was €1,981,760, representing 6.6% of the NTMA's overall payroll and that payments were made to 258 staff members. The information that I provided in my reply of 29 June was at an aggregate level and, in line with my reply on 7 June 2011, it did not provide information on payments made to individual employees of the NTMA.

I am satisfied that both questions were answered appropriately and I would also like to reassure the Deputy that it is my policy to answer all Parliamentary Questions put down to me by all Members of the House in as clear and comprehensive a manner as possible. Greater transparency in relation to expenditure on public services is a desirable objective. As I indicated in reply to a Parliamentary Question on 5 July 2011, it is my intention to examine the approach to remuneration in the NTMA in more detail in the coming months following consultation with my colleague, the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform. I will then see what changes, if any, might be appropriate in relation to the remuneration of all staff in the NTMA, having regard to the changing economic circumstances of the State and the need for transparency in public expenditure.