The job of Director of the Office of Fair Trading in London was this week reported to be nearly filled by a senior competition lawyer currently based in Brussels, Mr Philip Collins. The Financial Times said: "Whitehall insiders said the appointment had encountered a hitch and there was concern that terms might not be agreed." So a mess was being made of a public office appointment. Did this merit page one?

What followed did, at least for the embarrassment it must have caused and for its hint of sexism. The present deputy head of Britain's Competition Commission Ms Denise Kingsmill was thought to be a front-runner but, the FT reported "those near the selection process said Mr Collins had been by far the leading candidate in a field that did not impress officials".

"An insider" at the British UK Department of Trade and Industry said Ms Kingsmill had not made the final shortlist, adding that she might have cut "too exotic" a figure for the post. He questioned whether she would project the gravitas wanted for the job.

Well, more than a hint of sexism, I'd say, actually.

The lesson to any office-seeker, at least in London, must surely be, beware. You never know, but "officials", "insiders" and "people close to the selection process" may let it be known that members of the field did not impress themselves. You might be reported on the front page of a global newspaper as cutting "an exotic figure" or "lacking gravitas".

Here in the Republic, there is a growing trend to appoint similar public office executives, who wield considerable power and influence on commercial and public life - much more power than any backbencher, more than most ministers of state, and perhaps even more than some ministers.

More than secretaries-general, though the insiders will ask with characteristic raised eyebrows?

The newest position is the Director of the Office of Corporate Enforcement. The incumbent will monitor corporate compliance with company law, lead a team of lawyers, accountants and detectives, and initiate High Court action against non-compliant companies. The director will be given powers that the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment does not currently have.

Strangely enough, the requirements for the job do not include having a legal qualification, rather, "proven knowledge and/or experience in the company law environment". It may have been futile, though, to ask for a lawyer, as few lawyers with an in-depth knowledge of company law would apply for a job which pays just £61,836-(€78,516).

I do not mean to be sarcastic. This is a practical matter about demand and supply for skilled people. I would guess that most partners in commercial law firms earn double the aforementioned consideration. They would often be expected to bring in or handle about 10 times that amount in fee income.

Many associates, those just below partner level, would earn around £60,000. It is unlikely that their understandable ambition would be served by a fiveyear spell at a young age as Director of Corporate Enforcement.

In addition, there is the risk that some unkind people, rivals even, might rather publicly reach the withering judgment that one lacks gravitas, intellectual rigour and so on.

We assume there is no barrister in the country who would refuse the chance to become attorney general, even at the cost of foregoing fees. The same does not go for the Office of Corporate Enforcement. And unlike competition policy, an expert in corporate enforcement is not likely to be in high demand in many situations where large amounts of money are at stake. The opportunities after public service cannot be as great for corporate enforcement as for competition and telecoms expertise, for example.

There is a growing range of commercial regulators being put in place - electricity and airports adding to financial services, competition, telecoms, and consumer affairs. Where will the skilled people be found to fill contract jobs at Civil Service managerial salaries? The State cannot afford to have people in commercially and consumer-sensitive public service contract positions who are not top class, and paid as such.

After all the talk about abolishing relativities in public service pay, there is no good reason why remuneration and conditions for these few, but important, positions cannot be set from a blank sheet. At a time when flexibility in terms and conditions is an essential tool to attract and retain staff in the private sector, the public sector must be equally nimble.

The evidence from the latest appointment is that no new thought has been brought to bear on this issue.

The surplus of revenue over spending this year is now expected by the Department of Finance to be £200 million, not €650 million, as mistakenly stated last week. Tax revenue is expected to exceed previously forecasted revenue by as much as £650 million. Unforeseen spending means that the additional surplus is calculated to be only £200 million. The point remains that such major underestimates of tax revenue are not good.