Department objected to Government's ‘housing tsar' amid concerns over pay and recruitment
Department of Public Expenditure
sought to block the approval by
Cabinet
of the so-called '
housing tsar
' in April, new internal records show.
The Government department responsible for State spending cited concerns about the lack of a business case for the role, the implications for wider public pay policy and concerns about the process for the selection of the preferred candidate,
Brendan McDonagh
, the chief executive of Nama.
Mr McDonagh withdrew from consideration for the role after political concerns were raised about the possibility that he might retain his €430,000 salary at Nama in the new job, and public disagreements between Coalition partners Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael over the issue.
The Government intends to proceed with establishing the role to head a new 'Housing Activation Office', which is being created in a bid to speed up the building of homes to ease the housing crisis.
READ MORE
But it is understood objections from the Department of Public Expenditure over the role have not yet been addressed.
[
Nama's Brendan McDonagh says he could have added 'value' to new housing delivery agency
Opens in new window
]
The proposal is not yet ready to be signed off at a meeting of the Cabinet housing committee scheduled for today, though senior sources expect that possible names for the post will be discussed by the leaders of the Government parties soon, possibly next week.
Newly released emails between senior officials in the Department of Public Expenditure ('DPer') and the Department of Housing – issued under the Freedom of Information Act – reveals concerns about the role.
DPer officials told their counterparts in housing on Friday, April 25th that the memo relating to the role was 'not in position to go to Government' the following week.
'We have only got sight of the draft today and we need time to properly consider a number of elements, particularly around the organisation structure,' the spending department told them.
DPer complained that its pay policy division had not received a request to sanction the post describe this as 'the usual process'.
'There seems to have been no engagement with them on this and the wider pay policy implications,' the officials said.
There was, the department said, no business case made; the pay rate was not disclosed; there were 'unclear' references to 'contracted expertise' for staff; and no background material was supplied on the recruitment process 'that appears to have been undertaken for the selection of the appointee'.
Earlier, Eoin Dorgan, an assistant secretary at the Department of Public Expenditure, had written to the Department of Housing warning that several issues would have to be considered before the memo could go to Government.
They included the functions and objectives of the HAO, its Exchequer implications, pay and conditions for the chief executive and wider staff and the precedents established by them and how the new office would interact with 'wider infrastructure projects and the National Development Plan'.
Sources with knowledge of the issues raised said DPer's objections have not fully been addressed yet, though it is expected that the office, with a new chief executive, will be established in the coming weeks.
In response to questions, the Department of Public Expenditure said it was continuing to engage with the Department of Housing 'to finalise the establishment of the new office and its operations and also in relation to the arrangements for the CEO of the HAO as appropriate'.
Last week, the most senior civil servant in the Department of Housing Graham Doyle
told a property conference he did not think a 'housing tsar'
was necessary. The department later said in a statement that his remarks reflected his opposition to the term 'tsar' rather than the role.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Irish Times
2 hours ago
- Irish Times
Ukraine: Possibility and peril as Trump pushes for Putin-Zelenskiy meeting
Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskiy welcomed Monday's summit at the White House with US president Donald Trump as a 'major step forward' towards ending Europe's deadliest conflict in 80 years and towards setting up a trilateral meeting with Russia's president Vladimir Putin and Trump in the coming weeks. The meeting, attended by European leaders as well as Zelenskiy and Trump, resulted in one potentially major win for Ukraine: Trump's suggestion the US could play a role in providing security guarantees for Ukraine in a post-war era. But how reliable is Trump's support, and what would such security guarantees look like? Eastern Europe correspondent Dan McLaughlin and Europe correspondent Jack Power join Hugh Linehan to talk about the details of the discussions and why the path towards any sort of peace deal remains difficult and unpredictable.
Irish Times
2 hours ago
- Irish Times
The Irish Times view on the European dash to Wahington: pulling the emergency cord
Three days after Donald Trump's calamitous encounter with Vladimir Putin in Alaska, the sight of a hastily assembled delegation of European political heavyweights arriving at the White House underlined how grave the consequences could be. Rarely has a single presidential performance so unsettled allies while emboldening an adversary. The Americans may have intended the summit to signal progress towards ending the war in Ukraine. Instead, it left Europe scrambling to limit the damage. The source of alarm is obvious. Trump reversed his recent insistence that any peace process must begin with a ceasefire. He also appeared willing to entertain Putin's demand that Kyiv surrender territory it currently controls. To many, this looked like capitulation to Russian aggression and a betrayal of Ukraine. Monday's emergency transatlantic mission brought Volodymyr Zelenskiy to Washington flanked by some of the most senior figures in European politics. Their presence was designed both to bolster the Ukrainian president and press Trump to reaffirm positions that had been cast aside in Anchorage. Chief among these was the need for credible and durable security guarantees for Ukraine, without which any settlement would simply invite future Russian aggression. European leaders who reconvened again yesterday will have been aware that the vague Anerican assurances they received are not worth very much. But they will have been somewhat reassured that principles so recklessly discarded were at least partially restored. The price for this modest success was an unedifying spectacle of European politicians flattering and fawning over a president who appears to relish the rituals of deference more than the responsibilities of leadership. READ MORE All the same concerns remain, though. Trump had, in recent months, inched towards a more considered stance on Ukraine. That he could be swayed so abruptly by Putin confirms European fears about his longstanding admiration – bordering on obsequiousness – for the Russian leader. The path ahead is now uncertain. The Kremlin responded to the Washington meeting with a position paper that repeated the aggressive demands that accompanied the full-scale invasion in 2022. Trump believes he can engineer a direct meeting between Putin and Zelenskiy. Perhaps he can, though it is far from clear that the Russian would countenance such optics with a man he has so persistently sought to delegitimise. For now, the war grinds on with contining airstrikes on civilian targets, and Kyiv's stretched resources facing a slow but relentless Russian advance in the east. By drawing Trump into his worldview, Putin has deflected pressure for harsher sanctions, unsetttled European capitals and undermined Ukrainian morale. He has reason to view the week's work as a strategic success.
Irish Times
3 hours ago
- Irish Times
The Irish Times view on Ireland's economic position: not as good as it looks
The decision by The Economist magazine to exclude Ireland from its annual ranking of the world's richest countries is not the first time comparisons of this kind have sidelined the State's economy, Even official EU statistics now sometimes leave out Ireland, particularly when looking at trends in trade. And private sector analysts often exclude Ireland when looking at Europe-wide indicators. Should we be upset? Not really. The problem, as the Economist puts it, is that Ireland's economic data is 'polluted by tax arbitrage.' Multinationals organise their tax affairs to declare as much profit as possible in Ireland, helped by accountants who are , as the magazine said , 'as versed in the arts of surreal creativity as James Joyce.' Ireland argues, with some justification, that these companies have ' substance' here – in other words they employ people and produce goods or services from Ireland. However, the extent of the profit declared here is well in excess of what would be justified by this activity. And so, on a range of estimates, as much as half of Ireland's corporate tax take may be 'windfall' – not directly related to activity here – and our Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is very significantly inflated. Does this matter? It complicates analysis of Ireland's economy and more meaningful assessments now use other modified aggregates. Had the Economist included Ireland in its list of GDP per head, it would have been somewhere in the top half dozen countries. A more realistic measure would put Ireland in the middle of the European pack. READ MORE Unfortunately, Ireland's out-of-kilter data has created another problem. It has put the State in the spotlight internationally, including in the White House, where there has been focus on Ireland's trade surplus with the US, due almost entirely to pharma exports. The Irish GDP and trade figures may not reflect the scale of real activity here, but they do show major pharma production in Ireland for the US market and the impact of the associated aggressive tax planning. In that way, Ireland's mangled figures do still tell a real story.
