As the general election approaches, politicians are concentrating, not only on the policies that divide them, but on the effectiveness of the representative institutions in which they operate.
Two worthwhile reports yesterday address these questions. An ambitious set of proposals on the Oireachtas, put forward by an inter-party whips' group, describes them as "the most far-reaching reforms of the Dáil since the foundation of the State". The first interim report by the Chairman of the National Forum on Europe, Mr Maurice Hayes, says it is an inclusive listening shop to provide a focus "for the debate on Europe which the Irish people have not had for some time".
Implicit in that comment is a criticism of the Oireachtas's failure to achieve one of its most important objectives. Mr Hayes says the Forum is an exercise in participatory democracy, drawing in political parties and interest groups involved in the Nice referendum campaign. Its first phase has been dedicated to the consequences of enlarging the European Union to 25 members. The report skilfully draws out a consensus in favour of enlargement from the Forum's comprehensive and increasingly confident and well-informed proceedings - despite deep disagreement about means to obtain that objective.
Why it should be necessary to go outside the Oireachtas for such an understanding, illuminates the problem. The inter-party group acknowledges that if public interest in Ireland's political system is to be increased, some of the Dáil's procedures and practices must be reformed. Among the major changes proposed, is a new system for monitoring EU legislation by the Dáil and its committees at two key stages - the initiation of legislation and its eventual consideration by the EU council of ministers. Government departments will be expected to evaluate and brief committees, which would have substantially greater powers to hear all involved. The Government has accepted this change and "would be required to take serious account of the views presented" by the committee when preparing its negotiating position.
These changes would strengthen parliamentary scrutiny of EU affairs and therefore the effectiveness of the Oireachtas. So would the other major innovations. Electronic voting would save parliamentary time. An extra 10 hours a week would be available on a three-week cycle of Dáil meetings, with the fourth week devoted exclusively to committee meetings. They would be more effective if capped at 10 members. Changes in the allocation of time for questions and discussion of current issues would make the Oireachtas more relevant. Other more technical reforms would have a similar cumulative impact.
All this is a welcome recognition that a real modernisation of our representative democracy is necessary. There seems to be a willingness to push it through the parties. These changes would require a radical reappraisal of dual mandates and probably of the electoral system that militates against national parliamentary work. There is also a wider onus - notably on the media - to consider how the work of a reformed Oireachtas can be more effectively communicated to voters.