Martin McAleese (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I recall stating, when I was first appointed to the Seanad, that I looked forward to working with colleagues to make this House a place to which citizens would look for inspiration, reassurance and encouragement. During the summer I reflected on the extent to which we had achieved this goal. In that context, I asked myself what the House had done to be innovative and imaginative and improve its sense of connectedness with ordinary people.

To make that assessment, it is necessary to consider our record of innovation in the past year. The Seanad Public Consultation Committee was established and its first consultation, on the rights of older people, successfully concluded with the presentation of a report to the Minister. A similar consultation process is now under way on cancer and lifestyle issues. A former President, Mary Robinson, and former Senator, Dr. Maurice Manning, addressed the Seanad, as did a representative of the Orange Order last July. These are welcome developments but are they enough? Is the standing and relevance of this House any better in the eyes of ordinary people than it was at the commencement of this Seanad in May of last year? At this challenging time in our country's history, have we made a genuine effort to ensure this Chamber is an open space wherein people from all walks of life can be drawn into public discourse - people whose experience makes them well placed to assist us in framing formative and pioneering debates on a range of issues?

It could be argued that such debate is the role of the various committees of the Oireachtas, but I do not accept that point. Committee meetings can be adversarial and, rightly or wrongly, attending delegates often feel they are being asked to justify or defend their position. By contrast, the Seanad affords an opportunity for an expansive, reflective and informative exchange which creates a sense of involvement and empowerment for those who engage with us. To clarify, I am not saying this type of engagement should be an opportunity to petition. That would be entirely wrong. Rather, it is an opportunity to inform.

This and more can be achieved without a requirement for any legislative change. At most, it would require minor changes to how we do our business. Facilitating this type of engagement would allow this House to make a more valuable contribution to public debate while also creating a cohort of ambassadors and advocates for the worth of the Seanad at a time when its future is uncertain. I commend the Leader on the welcome initiatives already taken. As we resume business, I ask him to invite all Members to make suggestions as to how we can bring further innovation and imagination to bear on the business of the House.