Latest news with #publicexpenditure
Irish Times
2 days ago
- Business
- Irish Times
Department objected to Government's ‘housing tsar' amid concerns over pay and recruitment
The 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.
Yahoo
5 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Josh Harris makes case for D.C. stadium deal
The Commanders and D.C. mayor Muriel Bowser have a stadium deal. That's not the end of the matter but the beginning. Next, D.C. Council must approach the arrangement and the significant public expenditure that comes with it. That makes it a distinctly political issue. Winning at the ballot box is one thing (such votes routinely fail). Here, the Commanders, the NFL, and Bowser still need to get enough members of the D.C. Council behind the project. Appearing recently on The Deal with Alex Rodriguez and Jason Kelly, owner Josh Harris rattled off some of the pro-stadium talking points. Harris said, via Sports Business Journal, that the stadium deal will "be highly beneficial" for the District, citing the $2.7 billion payment the team will be making as the biggest private investment in D.C. history. 'The project has incredible [return on investment] for D.C., literally billions of tax revenues, thousands of homes and thousands of jobs," Harris said. "And of that, 30 percent are, by agreement, going to be affordable homes. And so it's going to raise the standard. And then you get an amazing entertainment district.' Harris added that the redevelopment is "going to change D.C.," while acknowledging the basic reality that it all comes down to whether they can persuade the politicians to support the project. 'The next step for us is to obviously get the council's vote," Harris said. "You've got to tell the citizens and the politicians . . . why this is good for the city, why they should invest their money in this.' The basic argument is that D.C. will make back its $500 million and then some in tax revenue. Council's response easily could go like this: "The District will make that money anyway, even without kicking in a half billion dollars." It's a common argument for companies seeking some sort of public subsidy. You'll get more back than you put in. But if the stadium is going to be built in D.C. even without kicking in $500 million, they'll get it all. The Commanders, the league, and Bowser have touted the stadium deal as basically a done deal. If D.C. Council declines to pay for any of the venue, will the Commanders proceed with a privately-financed project? Will they pick a site in Maryland or Virginia? That's the fundamental question for the D.C. Council. Are we willing to risk not having the stadium at all, if we refuse to pay for it? And are the Commanders willing to build a new stadium not in D.C. if the final verdict is, "Pay for it yourself."
