Matt Carthy (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the additional information on CCTV, although it is difficult to fathom how we do not already have CCTV in place. This has been going on for far too long. CCTV is necessary if we are to maintain the integrity of, and public esteem in, the sector.

A number of issues arise with the exit package of the former CEO. According to the correspondence, it is a standard feature of settlements that are made in the termination of employment. The public discourse suggested that the former CEO stood down, but this comment suggests something different happened. Could we ask the IHRB what the position was and how the termination of the CEO's employment came about?

If we have learned anything in the past couple of weeks, I hope it is that just because something was done secretly for many years does not mean that was the correct way of doing it. The CEO and board agreed that the terms of the CEO's retirement package would be kept confidential in the interests of discretion and in light of the sensitivity of the situation. We could do with clarification about what was so sensitive about this situation. An ongoing issue was raised at this committee and others about the then CEO's salary package not being disclosed. That position has changed with the new appointee, but the correspondence confirms that a conscious decision was taken to keep the exit package confidential. This is public money and the public are entitled to know the terms of a payment to a senior officer. This is not a redundancy package that is being provided on general terms to staff members. This is a CEO's exit package outside of the statutory redundancy measures that are in place.

The taxpayers are entitled to know. My two questions concern getting clarification regarding the circumstances that led to the termination of employment and also clarification as to the sensitivity of the situation. It was said that it was mutually agreed between the board and the CEO that the terms would be kept confidential. Is this legally binding? If so, what is the basis for this legal provision?