Dick Roche (Wicklow, Fianna Fail)

The group's remit was to establish the extent of cross-party agreement on recommendations in the report. Frankly, I am not sure exactly how much agreement there is. There are some areas of consensus but others where I do not think it will emerge. The group held its first meeting in October 2005 and will hold its fourth on 18 October 2006.

I will make a proposal to the House and a couple of points about the idea of a petitions committee. Perhaps the Committee on Procedure and Privileges will consider the points I raise for the Seanad to clarify. It can then bring forward the matter as the first item on the agenda for the meeting of 18 October where we can develop a real consensus around the idea.

The motion focuses initially on the recommendations which could be effected, such as changes in Standing Orders, including the recommendation for the promotion of the Seanad as an appropriate place for public consultation in the early stages of legislation. That is hardly an earth-shifting proposal. To take forward that and other proposals and to update itself on developments in the interim, the group made contact with the relevant Oireachtas committees, the Taoiseach, relevant Ministers, Departments, and the Dáil Committee on Procedure and Privileges and stated that the matter could be best pursued in the course of dealings with the Party Whips.

The motion does not call on the Government, on me, or on the all-party group to take a specific action which is good because it sets a ball rolling and allows people to make up their own minds. The motion seems to be an internal matter in the first instance for the Seanad and that is why it should ask the Seanad Committee on Procedure and Privileges for its view.

It needs, however, to clarify several issues. I do not intend these points as criticism. It is easy to destroy an idea and I do not wish to do that. I am interested in the Seanad and in reforming it. Senator O'Rourke tells me that we are not going far enough in the Seanad. There is an area of real interest in this motion but the Seanad needs to say how it proposes to define the remit of the committee, for example, what sort of issues could be brought before it. Senators Tuffy and Ryan indicated how it should approach that. This needs clarity and focus.

Senators Tuffy and Ryan suggest that issues would be confined to operations in the public services. If a petitions committee is to focus on what is needed that would not be what is being done but what should be done. We need more clarity here.

How would such a committee fit in with other agencies such as the Ombudsman, the Freedom of Information Commission, or the Garda Ombudsman Commission? If it is to handle petitions in the sense of complaint, an issue which Senator Tuffy mentioned, it ought not create an additional layer where there are already grievance agencies. How would it relate to the Comptroller and Auditor General who sometimes deals with the use of public funds, or with the Oireachtas committees?

What procedures would the Seanad employ to vet and prioritise complaints? It would not be a good idea for the petitions committee to become a listing agency with a long list of items, worthy though they may be, from the four corners of Ireland. I can think of plenty of people standing at corners signing petitions. The Seanad needs to think about that.

What resources would be necessary? If the committee is to make any sense we must discuss its resource implications. The cost of the committee has not been established. Will it need a budget line? The most important question is whether such a committee would have an investigative role? There have been many occasions when, as a public representative, I was extremely frustrated, for example, on the issue of the sale of lands at Glending. There is a large volume of correspondence about this because I raised the issue as a Senator and as a Deputy.