Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)

The code of conduct is all very interesting. However, what is the legal status of the procedure to which the Minister of State referred? Creating laws is what the Oireachtas does. Codes and procedures are interesting, subject to negotiation and amendment, but do not come within the purview of the House. We are setting out the legal basis for the conduct of civil servants in public affairs and how they are disciplined.

Section 10(1)(a) contains serious sanctions that can be taken against a civil servant, such as placing him or her on a lower rate of remuneration, reducing him or her to a specific lower grade or rank or suspending him or her without pay. Section 10(3) states:

Before any action is taken pursuant to paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of this section, the civil servant concerned shall be afforded an opportunity of making to the appropriate authority any representations that the civil servant may wish to offer.

Deputy Burton's amendment proposes to add "and regard shall be had to the civil servant's right to fair procedures and to any representation made or evidence adduced by the civil servant". What is wrong with that? It sits perfectly well with the case made by the Minister of State on the agreed code of procedures.

I can only conclude that the Minister of State is against it because it comes from this side of the House. There are Ministers who take the line that such amendments are unnecessary as they are covered in some other procedure. I am not interested in it being covered in procedure. We are making a law and it should be done in a fair and encompassing way to ensure that what the Minister of State claims is understood is explicitly stated. If the Minister of State is agreeable to the adherence of a civil servant's right to fair procedures and that the appropriate authority should have regard to any representation or evidence adduced, then it must be stated in the legislation. The Minister of State has given no coherent reason that this amendment will cause any damage to the Bill. He has not explained how it is counter to the agreed procedures in operation or it is not what is intended. Why is he then opposed to it?

See this speech in context