Shane Ross (Dublin South, Independent)

Two weeks ago I raised an issue about the vast payment of €700,000 to the Secretary General of the Department of the Taoiseach on his retirement. I was given a plausible, albeit unconvincing, response that it was a legacy issue resulting from a deal negotiated under the previous Government. I propose to touch on something Deputy Martin addressed which is not a legacy issue. It is related to NewERA which was established last week and which the House has discussed. What interests me is not the merits of the case for setting up NewERA but the appointment of its director. Is the procedure by which the director was appointed to the job satisfactory to the Government? The procedure was as follows: there was none. There was no advertising, competition or interview and the National Treasury Management Agency which for some reason has been given charge of NewERA refused to reveal the salary of the person appointed.

While a decision made behind closed doors in this manner is unacceptable, for a chief executive or director of a State body who is paid, in my estimate, in the region of €300,000 or €400,000 to be appointed in this way is completely unacceptable. The result - the appointment by the NTMA of one of its insiders - indicates that little has changed in the appointment of persons under the new Government. Does the person involved have the job specification and specialist knowledge necessary? The new body is not in charge of fund management, the area she was in charge of previously, but the sale of State assets. I have not seen any evidence that anybody in the NTMA is qualified to advise or give directions on the sale of State assets. Why does the Government not direct the agency to advertise the position and hold an interview to find someone who is not an insider or at least give a chance to someone who is not an insider to take charge and advise on what is a vital part of Government policy?

See this speech in context