Mr. Peter Tyndall:

The arguments that have been made in favour of having a single, consolidated Bill are, broadly speaking, unanswerable. The current arrangements are difficult to understand, it is impossible for people who have to deal with them to fully understand what their responsibilities are and they are very difficult to implement in practice. The number of successful outcomes achieved by the current arrangements in holding people to account appear to fall far short of the perceived difficulties that the commission should properly be tackling. The notion that the current arrangements are fit for purpose is wrong. They are not. The need for change is compelling.

The committee members know that the vast majority of public representatives behave in an entirely ethical fashion, and that the small number of people who do not do so can attract most of the public attention. As Dr. Byrne was implying, that can tend to suggest that all of those engaged in public life are self-seeking and simply looking to benefit their own interests rather than seeking the best for the people of the State. That is not true and committee members know that, so they need a regime that, above all, sets out the aspirations we as a nation have for ethical behaviour and what we see it resembling. I suggest something along the lines of the Nolan principles, setting out for Ireland what we believe people should aspire to - selflessness, leadership, complete propriety and acting in a way that benefits the people of the State rather than those individuals.

The arrangements here go a long way towards that, but fall a little short. When one speaks to people internationally, one finds that Ireland is regarded as having the leading piece of legislation on lobbying in the world at the moment. On the ethics front, however, I do not think this quite reaches the same standard. Perhaps that is because, as Dr. Byrne was implying, it is driven in response to events rather than by consideration of best practice elsewhere and how we could incorporate that into Ireland.

It seems to me that some of the elements of the scheme are close to the cutting edge. Other elements - there has been some mention particularly of the investigation arrangements - seem, as drafted, to be cumbersome and likely to be long drawn out and difficult in practice. I would favour something far more streamlined. Also, I do not share my colleagues' anxieties about the model of a single commission. When we discussed this at the commission, people's views were divided. One can look to models abroad, and many offices in countries outside Europe do use a commissioner. There are examples of commissioners dealing with it. We should be less obsessed with the structure and more concerned about what the content is and whether it is right.

I am a strong believer in a promotional role, offering clear guidance for people who are bound by codes to have a code of practice that is well set out and to have examples available. I am drawing partly on my experience from a previous job. When I was Ombudsman in Wales I was responsible for investigating complaints that members of local authorities had breached their code of conduct. As part of that, I spent a lot of time producing clear guidance, casebooks setting out examples of what had happened, and so on. However, much of the role was actually about training people in what it is to be a public representative and how best to perform that role, to avoid having the types of criticism that arise. Investigation should be at the margins; it is promotion that is really important, and having a good framework in place.

In looking at this, I hope that the committee will, as has been suggested by both of my colleagues, look to the best of international practice and see if we can come up with something that is a little more ambitious than this while building on what is obviously a step forward from the position. Maybe when it comes to the issues around investigation, we will have something that is both proportionate - something that does not deal with trivial matters and concerns itself only with the more serious matters - and also effective in the way that it can deliver outcomes.