Maureen O'Sullivan (Dublin Central, Independent)

Tá súil agam go n-éireoidh go breá leis ina phost.

In the term of the 30th Dáil, I concluded that the committee system was a very complicated labyrinth involving joint committees, sub-committees, select committees, Seanad committees, standing committees and special committees. A number of diverse reports were produced by all of them. The purpose of the committees was to advise on a wide range of legislative, social, economic and financial business and to process proposals for Bills on Committee Stage and examine Government expenditure. I was fascinated to see on the Oireachtas website that "the setting of up of well-organised joint committees has resulted in Deputies and Senators having additional opportunities to participate to an even greater extent in specialised parliamentary work where they take evidence from interest groups, meet witnesses or invite key Departmental officials in on specific issues of interest."

I like the title of these statements, "Making Committees Work in the 31st Dáil", because I have had, since I was a teenager quite some time ago, considerable experience of committees, all in a voluntary capacity. Some of that committee work continues today. The committees on which I participated were associated with youth clubs, community projects, community organisations, boards of management, festivals, drugs task forces and the Young People's Facilities and Services Fund. They all had one thing in common: they generally comprised a small number who were all committed to the work and who were not members to fill seats. There were no expenses involved and there was no remuneration for chairing the committee. Punctuality was a key factor. People arrived on time and stayed for all of the meeting. Most important, decisions were made and actions followed. At the meeting after a decision was made, a report would have been produced on that action. The meetings were to the point, and when people spoke it was not to score points but to advance the issue.

I was on committees that convened solely to do a specific job and when that was done they were disbanded. Equally, there were committees whose members worked together for a considerable time out of loyalty to the relevant organisation.

When I entered the 30th Dáil, I was interested in the work of some committees but my status as an independent precluded me from being a member of a considerable number of them. I attended committee meetings when I could and found they were attended by very few of the actual members. There were committees at whose meetings a member would ask a question of the visiting delegation or speaker and then leave before that question was answered. I attended committees to listen to a presentation and noted members spent more time talking to each other than to the delegations and were not paying the slightest attention to the speaker. Chairmen also spent considerable time consulting staff during presentations. Some delegates were civil servants, in respect of whom I sometimes wondered about the time they spent getting here, speaking and leaving. I wondered whether they would not have made a better difference if they had stayed at their desks. Some delegations would come to speak and as meetings take place during Dáil sittings the bell would ring for a vote and the delegation would be left speaking to an empty chair. I attended the launch of certain reports and I wonder where those reports are languishing now and to what they have led.

I pursued being on a committee and I got an opportunity to sit on the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs. Overall, it was a positive experience. However, some of the issues I mentioned were relevant such as the bells ringing in the middle of presentations and delegations being left alone, and some members appearing and disappearing in almost the same moment. Also, there was a change of membership after a few months. I was fortunate to have had on that committee the benefit of the considerable experience on human rights issues of former Deputy Michael D. Higgins and Senator David Norris. At that committee we met delegations from Colombia, Gaza, Afghanistan, Iran, Pakistan, Zimbabwe, Ethiopia and Haiti. What difference did these delegations make to the crises, situations or human rights abuses in their countries? Yes, it was decided that letters would be written but to what did they lead? It was very frustrating and sad to sit there and listen to those stories feeling totally powerless to advance the issue the delegations had brought to the committee's attention.

I welcome what Deputy Howlin stated and that he accepts the committee structure has been weak. For reform we need committees to be meaningful and relevant and we also need a consistent and interested membership which has a real role to make a difference. There is a need for a protocol on attendance and participation, and each committee could do with outlining a mission statement. Above all, the committees should not be talking shops. I welcome the plans in the report for the committees to have more power and responsibility and I hope that what Deputy Howlin stated is not left to languish.

See this speech in context