Trevor Ó Clochartaigh (Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I thank the witnesses for their useful presentations. I will paraphrase what they might have meant to us but were too polite to say - when it comes to our international obligations, we talk the talk but do not walk the walk in many cases. They mentioned the monitoring role. The Public Service Oversight and Petitions Committee was given responsibility for that because the Office of the Ombudsman found itself in a similar position in that it was laying reports before these Houses and nothing was happening with them. The witnesses mentioned the Department of the Taoiseach. Where do they believe that responsibility should sit? When we made proposals to change the mechanisms of the Houses, we recommended establishing a committee that would basically mark the Department of the Taoiseach and be chaired by an Opposition Deputy or Senator. Could such an Oireachtas committee be useful in checking that these obligations have been lived up to? Could the Seanad take that legislative role of overseeing these international obligations on an organised basis and debate whether we are living up to that when the deadlines approach?

I welcome that the survivors of symphysiotomy have become part of this group. They have full support in the Seanad for their issues.

On the issue of talking the talk and not walking the walk, we get frustrated when we raise issues relating to asylum, immigration, etc., and are told a Bill is in the offing or that the heads of Bill have been prepared. There have been heads of an IRP Bill since 2010, but it has been stalled - we are told it is coming forward. In an international scenario, if the UNHRC comes back and advises we need to move on this and the Government responds that legislation is in the offing, is that enough to kick to touch from a legal perspective and is it good enough?