Sir, – Minister for Transport Leo Varadkar apparently suggested that he was legally powerless to force the DAA board or its chief Declan Collier to halt the payment of deferred bonuses of €106,000.
However, on review of relevant legislation in relation to the establishment of the DAA, I fail to see that the Minister is powerless; State Airports Act 2004, Section 14; subsection (3) states: “A Chief Executive shall hold office upon and subject to such terms and conditions (including terms and conditions relating to remuneration and allowances) as may be determined by the directors of the company of which he or she is the Chief Executive with the consent of the Minister given with the approval of the Minister for Finance.”
So, unless the Minister or his predecessor has already sanctioned these bonuses, I fail to see that they do not fall within the “terms and conditions” that require the Minister’s approval. (The Minister is defined in the Act as the Minister for Transport.) – Yours, etc,
Sir, – For years I thought the collective noun for ministers was “a pander”. Thanks to Minister for Transport Leo Varadkar, I now realise it is actually “a government”. – Yours, etc,
Sir, – On Saturday morning while flying out from Dublin airport, the northern security gate in Terminal 1 was closed. This meant all passengers in Terminal 1 had to pass through the remaining security point. This took 30 minutes. When I asked a DAA employee why the other checkpoint was shut, she replied that staff numbers had been reduced to such a level that only one checkpoint could be manned. That is one way I suppose of paying for a bonus. – Yours, etc,
Sir, – The DAA chief executive bonus controversy has profound public interest implications in the quest for national competitiveness and economic recovery.
Publicly owned DAA, catered for 22.61 million passengers and achieved revenues of €558.12 million in 2010. The chief executive was awarded a total remuneration package of €612,500.
Privately owned Heathrow Airport catered for 65.7 million passengers and achieved revenues of over €2 billion in 2010. The chief executive was awarded a total remuneration package of €476,580. Heathrow catered for 290 per cent more passengers than the Irish airport but the chief executive was paid 28.5 per cent less than his Irish counterpart in 2010.
The board of DAA felt it was legally obliged to provide for this bonus (Business Today, June 25th). How can this be reconciled with the Department of Finance guidelines for the remuneration of senior management of commercial state bodies developed by an interdepartmental group of assistant secretaries and published in March 2006? These explicitly state that the payment of performance-related pay will be determined by the remuneration committee of the board of the commercial State body, augmented for this purpose by a civil servant appointed by the appropriate Minister.
Furthermore, the Code of Practice for the Governance of State Bodies demands that government policy be implemented in relation to the remuneration of chief executives and that remuneration arrangements put in place by a relevant department, or the Department of Finance, for determining and approving the remuneration of a chief executive must be implemented and adhered to.
How, therefore, could Minister Varadkar be merely “very dissatisfied” about this bonus on the date that the DAA annual report is published? If the Minister’s hands are legally tied with respect to this bonus, will he appoint an entirely new board of directors that operates to his satisfaction in line with the mandate from the single shareholder, the State? The public interest demands clarity as well as leadership by example. – Yours, etc,
Sir, – The latest spat between those in high places in receipt of large bonuses and the Government surely highlights two glaring problems in this country. The first is the grossly unfair distribution of wealth generally and second, the ongoing scandal of the plethora of quangos and boards here.
Has the Minister considered the simple questions of whether we need a board in the first place to run these semi-State organisations, and if it is required to satisfy some legal requirement or other, do we need so many individuals on them? Aside from this, Leo Varadkar gave the clear impression that he and the Government have a problem with individuals taking more than their share out of the national pie.
If that is the case, then the solution is not only simple, but one that many regard as necessary if we are to get through this mess in one piece. The way to control incomes is by setting new tax bands to focus on all high-end income and applying appropriate tax rates once incomes exceed a certain level.
While Mr Varadkar might see the injustice of the present position whereby certain individuals are allowed to take what they like from the pot, it is odd that he and his colleagues cannot see the solution.
Could it be that doing the right thing with regard to distribution and control of incomes will never materialise while the decision- makers themselves are among those who the present two-band, low tax rate system benefits the most? It will be far too late when the red-flag-waving hoards are clamouring over the gates, to do what is right and fair regarding the distribution of national wealth. – Yours, etc,