He was also headhunted.

Representatives of the Construction Industry Federation came calling. He was offered a lucrative position which he accepted. He will start in his new position on 1 October.

When news of his job emerged there was the usual knee-jerk response. Claims about a conflict of interest were bandied around by the Labour Party and the self-appointed corruption watchdog, Transparency International.

But pause for a moment. Parlon is not a retiring office-holder who 'switches sides' to work for groups negotiating with the government in areas which he may previously have overseen. The electorate put Parlon out of a job. He did not seek the move to the CIF. He did not resign his political position to work for the private sector.

Those who work for the state and then move to other positions where a conflict of interest arises should, of course, have to serve out some type of gardening leave. But having kicked a politician out of political life . . . as the voters are entitled to do . . . are we now saying that former politician is not entitled to earn a living elsewhere?

The solution for those who criticised Tom Parlon's new job is that defeated TDs and ministers should be put on paid gardening leave for a defined period after the voters have said they don't want them. Now, that proposal would cause some fuss.