Dan Boyle (Green Party)

I thank Senators Twomey, O'Toole, Ross, Alex White, Mary White, Ó Brolcháin, Dearey and Burke for their contributions. I particularly thank Senator Burke for inserting a number of different viewpoints into the debate.

In general, the tenor the debate was supportive of the motion as tabled. There was a recognition that potential difficulties exist and an acceptance that this is a matter in respect of which reform is needed. Where criticisms were made, they were on the grounds that the motion was either inadequate or was too much of a precursor to the legislation that is to be introduced.

Extraneous matters relating to areas where reform may be required, for example, in respect of freedom of information, were also introduced to the debate. The motion is narrowly focused, however, to highlight something in respect of which agreement was reached and a commitment made and which will be brought into being. The purpose of this debate was to give Members the opportunity to inform the process relating to the drafting of the forthcoming legislation. This will ensure we will end up with the best possible Bill.

I thank the Minister of State for his contribution. He outlined the work that continues to be done to upgrade the various codes and standards of behaviour relating to all aspects of public life.

This debate had a number of secondary purposes, such as highlighting the fact that the extremely good codes that exist in respect of civil servants should also apply to public servants. There are areas of compromise in respect of which better legislation is required. An good argument was made in respect of the need to extend the new legislation to holders of elected public office and I am of the view that this will influence the legislation that will eventually emerge. Various views were expressed in that regard, particularly in respect of whether the legislation should apply to everyone in public life or, as the Minister of State indicated, specifically to holders of elected public office. I would support the latter option because it is the expertise and specialist knowledge that can be obtained and which gives rise to the possibility of getting oneself into a compromising situation subsequently which should be taken into consideration when framing the legislation.

I listened carefully to what the Minister of State said in respect of the amendment. I accept that it comes from a different perspective and highlights a difficulty that exists in respect of recruitment. It refers to how we might involve people with expertise who have been in the employ of the public service or who could add to the expertise of the public service. I do not believe any Member argued against this happening. The Minister of State also placed on record the fact that the Minister for Finance is aware of the need to be proactive to ensure that any gaps that exist will be identified and will subsequently be filled and that there should be no impediments in this regard.

I have no wish to divide the House on this matter. The amendment, which is not especially compatible with the overall motion, seems to call for a subsequent statement on how the matters to which I refer might be dealt with and on how the Minister for Finance intends to respond to the concerns that exist. The Minister of State indicated that the Minister intends to respond in respect of this matter. In that context, there is nothing contentious in what has been said here and I am of the view that this matter is worthy of further debate.

I thank all Senators who contributed to the debate. They have assisted in highlighting this matter to a much greater extent. There is a broad consensus that improvement is required in this area, particularly in the context of public standards. It is my view that this debate will add to that improvement.