Mary Lou McDonald (Dublin Central, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

Now like a deer caught in the headlights she attempts to pull out of the Labour Party hat political gimmicks and ludicrous and uncosted populist promises, as she tries so hard to curry favour in the hope that people will forget the injury she and her Government has caused them by an endless litany of austerity policies.

It is insulting to suggest, as the Tánaiste claims, that she and she alone should be the arbiter of who is qualified or not for a public position. If David Begg is so eminently qualified, and I have no reason to believe otherwise, he is a very experienced man, why did he not go through the standard, transparent appointment process? Why did the Tánaiste feel in this case that it was necessary to circumvent it? The inference suggests that David Begg is not qualified for the position that he has been granted. The clear inference is also that this is merely a grubby display of cronyism, unworthy of any Tánaiste and unfair to David Begg. Of course, this is not a one off because the Labour Party has form in this regard. The Labour Party will clearly breach its own rules when it suits it. It really is a case of "do as I say, not as I do". The Labour Party, in particular, is clearly saying one thing and doing another. The Tánaiste pays her head of staff an annual salary of €144,424; that is almost €52,000 above the pay cap for special advisers. That is the pay cap set by the Tánaiste and the Government but it did not prevent her from breaching it because that is what she and the Labour Party do.

The Tánaiste's response to this latest outrageous display of abject cronyism is pretty much her usual response, one of breathtaking arrogance and dismissal of her critics in an almost dilettante fashion. Is the Tánaiste really so out of touch with reality that she thinks this latest episode was an acceptable way of doing business? Were there other candidates for this position with the Pensions Authority? What do they feel about it? Were they any less qualified? Perhaps they would have been more humble and less out of touch and would have considered €20,000 a sizable sum of money. It is not only about the income involved. Whatever is said does not mitigate against the simple fact that what the Tánaiste did was just plain wrong. It sends out every wrong signal about politicians and public life and it goes against every sentiment expressed today during the debate on the Public Sector Standards Bill, but what does the Tánaiste care so long as she cares for her circle and her cronies? There is an election coming up and she hopes against hope that the people will have short memories.

See this speech in context