Eoghan Harris (Independent)

Senators O'Toole and O'Reilly have identified two important areas which should be addressed. However, there are other important areas which have also not been addressed. I sat through the entire Second Stage debate on the NAMA legislation yesterday - from 10.30 a.m. until late last night - and I was struck by the sheer quality and value of the contributions made by Members. It was a far superior debate to that which took place in the Lower House. In that context, it is a great pity "Oireachtas Report" did not provide an edited version of the debate. My contribution to the debate was probably the least important. I learned a great deal while listening to the contributions of others.

The Seanad should learn from what took place yesterday and should stop reacting to so-called topical or current debates in the Lower House. There are great structural issues in society in which we could set the agenda. For example, we need a proper debate on public sector reform, against the background of a positive debate on how to make our Civil Service more productive. In all the debates about the public sector, there has been much mistaken attack when people who think they are talking about public sector reform are talking about the Civil Service. The Civil Service is probably the most productive part of the public service. I usually tend to think of the HSE and other parts of the public sector. The public sector needs the kind of targets, enthusiasm and infusion of energy that Senator Leyden spoke about so well yesterday when he called for the Office of Public Works to be integrated into NAMA. That is the kind of progressive thinking we need. We must work out how to get the energy of the public sector directed into the reconstruction of the Irish economy. We need a debate on that.

We also need a debate on the other elephant in the room. Two years ago, I began to raise the issue of public sector reform. That was the elephant in the room then. The elephant in the room for the next couple of years will be private debt and negative equity. We should set the agenda in this area and have set-piece debates on structural rather than topical issues. Topical issues come and go, but if we carry out a full day's debate on the public sector, a well-informed debate like we had yesterday when all Senators had prepared, researched and worked on their contributions, and do the same kind of work on negative equity and private debt as we did yesterday on the subject under discussion, we will not have to ask people to report on it, we will be reported on.