For reasons which are still difficult to fathom, the ESB continues to function without a chief executive this morning. This is an astonishing state of affairs given the size, nature and complexity of the ESB's operations. The ESB is not some small tightly-knit family business; it is a colossus in the Irish semi-state sector with 10,000 employees and an annual turnover of almost £2,000 million. Against this background, the current dispute between the Government and the ESB Board about the pay and conditions of the new chief executive appears faintly ridiculous. In accordance with the guidelines established by the Buckley Report on Civil Service Remuneration, the board of the ESB offered the incoming chief executive, Mr Ken O'Hara, a salary package of about £200,000 incorporating basic pay, a performance-related bonus and other perks.
The Government, which deferred implementation of the Buckley report in July, has refused to sanction Mr O'Hara's package. It says that the ESB must adhere to the guidelines established by the 1987 Gleeson report - framed in much less favourable economic conditions - which allow for a salary of £105,000. While this type of salary might be the envy of the average worker, it is small beer indeed when compared to the pay and conditions enjoyed by chief executives in companies of similar size and scale. Northern Ireland Electricity, a much smaller company which is not engaged in electricity generation, pays its chief executive £165,000 per year. Chief executives in the private sector enjoy still more lavish salary levels - and share options. There are those who suggest that the board was foolish to offer the kind of package envisaged by the Buckley Report to Mr O'Hara - even though the report had still to be implemented by Government. The reality, however, is that the board acted in good faith. It assumed that the Buckley report - which had been widely welcomed on its publication last December - would be speedily implemented. It was not to know that the last government - in the months before the election - would sit on its hands. And that the current administration would defer implementation last July. From what one can detect, the Government's primary concern is that the proposed offer to Mr O'Hara will generate pressures for further hefty pay awards across the upper reaches of the Civil Service. There are also vague suggestions that it could unsettle union support for Partnership 2000. In themselves, these are laudable concerns. But the Government also has a responsibility to take a wider view. The Buckley report is an admirable attempt to inject a stronger strain of enterprise and accountability in the public service.
For its part, the ESB is in the throes of far-reaching changes as it seeks to re-adjust itself from its cosy monopoly status to a position in which it can compete on level terms in the EU energy market. In these circumstances, it makes sound business sense to recruit the best person and to pay the going rate. The ESB Board has done no more than this in appointing Mr O'Hara. It is incumbent upon the Minister for Public Enterprise, Ms O'Rourke, to stop the shilly-shallying. And to let him get on with the job.