Joanna Tuffy (Labour)

I welcome in general the consensus in the debate and the very thoughtful contributions about the proposal from both sides of the House. I welcome the Minister's positive attitude to the proposal. I should be gratified if the Committee on Procedure and Privileges set the ball rolling, as he said. Senator O'Rourke has suggested that this should be the first item on the next agenda of that committee.

The Minister asked what type of remit we had in mind. The issues to be raised are those that are within our remit. That is the way it works in other Parliaments. It is not just confined to other Parliaments. Councils and state legislatures have it in other countries, for example in the USA. Similarly, in Germany the landers, at a lower level than the Bundestag, have it. Those matters that are appropriate to local authorities should be dealt with by them. We would not be dealing, for example, with the issue raised by the Earl of Mayo, which related to how to fix the local footpath or road. That type of issue could be referred to a local government. We see that type of thing already in our committees.

Scotland and Germany both try to ensure that inappropriate material is not submitted. Guidelines are given and they have procedures on how to deal with inappropriate material. In Germany, for example, there is no obligation to deal with anonymous or confused petitions — or petitions that might affect pending court cases and so on. In Scotland, before a petition may be put one has to have carried out certain steps. Basically this involves clarifying whether one made representations to the Scottish Executive or sought the assistance of locally elected representatives such as councillors, MSPs and so on. In submitting the petition the steps that preceded it must be set out. It is important that we look at other examples, although that of the Scottish Parliament is particularly relevant.

As regards other matters raised, a grievances committee is not envisaged. It is not that type of petition. Senator Bannon mentioned the Labour Party document. That document did not go as far as suggesting what I am proposing here, which would be much more substantial and includes the right of the public to initiate proposals. It would not deal with the types of issues the Ombudsman deals with and so on.

As regards other discussions, Senator Brian Hayes mentioned the Private Members' Bills, something I had not thought of. I had one before me, which was done by the Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland. It is important to look at that and see how this type of arrangement is processed through the House at the moment. It would need to be developed, however, and there would have to be much broader scope. Colleges and such institutions would have solicitors, etc. The idea is not to have someone submitting a fully fledged Bill, but rather a proposal or suggestion. It basically would be about trying to move forward the type of idea as suggested by Senator Brian Hayes.

Senator Kitt mentioned voluntarism and the projects started by the Taoiseach in this regard. There is a problem with voluntarism, but where petitions committees exist in other countries they have been enormously successful in this area. Senator Bannon mentioned the example of Germany where they get 20,000 petitions a year. That of course is a much larger population. Since they started in Scotland they have received 1,000 petitions altogether.

Senator O'Rourke asked whether we would have thousands of petitions. There is a risk of that but we would need to embrace it. That is what other jurisdictions have done. A certain amount of background work has been done with the e-consultation process as regards the broadcasting Bill.

All speakers made good points. I want to return to what Senator O'Rourke said: "That the Seanad can provide a forum for that disconnect." I totally agree with her and believe this would be the ideal forum. Senator O'Rourke took the initiative as regards bringing people into this House to ask them questions, for example, on European Parliament issues. That was a very welcome initiative. She set a precedent that hopefully other Leaders of the House will replicate in the future.

Senators O'Rourke, Brian Hayes and others noted that much could be done without the full reform of the Seanad. Pending that many steps can be taken and this is a small thing we can do which would be very positive. It could make a real difference as regards participation and civil engagement with the Seanad — and through that, with the Oireachtas.

The Constitution does not have to be amended. We do not need the go-ahead from any Department and it is something we can do ourselves. I welcome in particular the Leader's response to the proposal and look forward to working with the Seanad in terms of trying to progress it in the future.