Olwyn Enright (Laois-Offaly, Fine Gael)

I would have to go through the farcical situation of raising the matter under Standing Order 32, which I know would be disallowed. I cannot remember one matter under that Standing Order being accepted in the past five years. Members will still raise them because it is the only way of getting a particular issue on the record.

The other avenue for raising matters is through the Adjournment debate. Members can only raise issues of the day or those which affect their constituencies. The arrangement is wholly inadequate. Each Member has five minutes to raise the matter and a Minister, often not the relevant one, gives a prepared reply. No matter what a Member says, the Minister will read out this prepared answer regardless. I appreciate it was the same when the Opposition was on the other side of the House. However, it is not a good system and must be changed. There is no arrangement for teasing out an issue. The Adjournment debate should be arranged along the same lines as Priority Questions, where a Member can raise a matter, ask the relevant Minister questions on it, with some toing and froing to tease out the issue.

I welcome and support the Minister's decision to change the Adjournment to a format known as current issues time. While increasing the number of matters allowed to six is welcome, the time allocation of three minutes is pathetic. Three minutes speaking time works out as 540 words. There is no way a Member could raise an issue of any consequence in 540 words. I do not support people talking endlessly on a topic as it achieves nothing. At the same time, I do not believe a matter can be dealt with effectively in such a time slot. The Minister must re-examine the format and provide a decent system for raising matters.

The oral questions format is not conducive to Members obtaining proper information. I do not know if there is a fairer system than the lottery arrangement but having important issues subject to such a process does not give them the attention they deserve.

The quality of replies to parliamentary questions is another issue. Deputy Seán Barrett pointed out that if one suffered from paranoia, one could wonder what the replies are trying to hide, even on the most mundane issues. Members are only seeking information and not trying to catch anyone out. However, the reply often results in more questions being tabled. If Departments answered Members' telephone and written queries, there would be no need to table so many parliamentary questions, which in turn wastes the time of the Civil Service. It is a last resort to obtain information. Will the Ceann Comhairle ask Departments to ensure Members receive sufficient information in replies to parliamentary questions?

Once the Dáil goes into its summer recess, the lack of a mechanism to table parliamentary questions means officials in Departments run and do not have to answer us. People's problems do not take three months holidays; they will still come to Deputies with their problems during the recess. When I ring or write to a departmental official about something, he or she knows I can table a parliamentary question demanding an answer. One just does not get the information or the service one is entitled to receive from the Department. This needs to be addressed to ensure Departments are fully accountable 365 days of the year.

Another issue I have relates to Departments asking Deputies to withdraw parliamentary questions. I do not mind withdrawing a question about an individual person, but when I am seeking information on a general issue relating to a Department, I resent being asked to withdraw the question. In that situation I decline to do so. What is wrong with having the information available to the public? It should be, but receiving an answer in an e-mail addressed to me only seems to indicate that it is a method by which to hide. The worst aspect is the manner in which parliamentary questions are referred to the HSE, NEPS and SENOs. This is a widespread practice which has got out of control. I always go to the HSE, the special educational needs organiser or the NRA first for information. When they do not give me the information I require, I have to go through the parliamentary question system, when the question is referred back to the very person who would not give me the information in the first place. All we are doing is creating a cycle of work, keeping a few people in jobs and getting nothing done. That is the real issue.

The timelag for a response from the HSE is beyond belief, but the lack of accountability on the part of the Minister in charge is worse. Last week I tabled a series of questions as regards maternity services because of the serious problems being experienced in the hospital in Portlaoise and others brought to my attention where consultant anaesthetists were not available to give an epidural. Maternity beds were also not available. As a consequence, women were not able to receive treatment because they could not be brought to the labour ward. The reply I received was that the Minister was unable to answer the questions as they were matters for the HSE. The reality is that the Department of Health and Children gives the HSE its budget. When an extension is being built, Ministers are very willing to take a trowel and put cement on top of a few blocks, yet when there is a problem, they plead that the HSE has nothing to do with them. That is wrong and has to change.

There are too many quangos. However, I do not want to be hypocritical in this regard, as I called for the establishment of a national fire authority the other night. While there are instances in which they are needed, this does not mean they should not be accountable to the House.

The practice in the Department of Education and Science of passing questions to special educational needs organisers has got out of control. The point I wish to make in this instance is similar to the one I made as regards the HSE.

The committee structure needs a radical overhaul. I support what Deputy Naughten said about the need for much better scrutiny of European legislation which has been put through, effectively, with a nod and a wink. I hope the proposals of the Government Chief Whip, Deputy Tom Kitt, will address this.

At 22, the number of committees is too great and it smacks of jobs for the boys and girls. Deputy Calleary might not like me saying this.

See this speech in context