Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)

I was busy, and Deputy Finian McGrath helped me out on the Joint Committee on Justice, Defence and Women's Rights on occasion.

I also attended a number of other committees because as it was a small party at the time, I had a number of portfolios and there were a range of committees, for example, the Committee on European Affairs, Foreign Affairs, Justice, Defence and Women's Rights, and Social Protection, which I would attend on a regular basis and, therefore, I had some idea of how each of them worked.

One of my criticisms, for instance, in European affairs, is that the Joint Committee on European Affairs did much of the work of the Joint Committee on European Scrutiny, but also did much of the work of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs. There seemed to be an overlap. That might be one of the areas to address, if the Minister is looking at reducing the number of committees. He might look at the area of amalgamating EU affairs and foreign affairs.

Under the Lisbon treaty and under our responsibilities, we need an EU scrutiny committee. In defence of that committee, it is one of the most wide-ranging committees in the Dáil. If anybody has an interest in any area of politics in Ireland and in Europe, that is one of the committees on which to sit. A significant volume of material goes through it.

Chairmen of committees were criticised, sometimes justifiably for their remuneration, which used to be €20,000 and has been reduced to €10,000. However, the Chairman of the Joint Committee on European Scrutiny had to travel on a regular basis to committee meetings in Europe of all of the other chairmen so that there was co-ordination and one does not give up easily a weekend every month or two. There is quite a task involved in chairing committees.

I was one who at one stage offered to chair the Joint Committee on Justice, Defence and Women's Rights free of charge. I would have been honoured, as anybody should be, to take on the role of chairing a committee of this House. It allows a Deputy a greater say in some issues. We should look at whether there is remuneration required at all for committee chairmen.

One of the issues for those who have not attended committees in the past and who have not seen them — especially new Members who have come in here and have seen the adversarial nature of this Chamber where on occasion we score points off each other — is that the nature of committees is much different and much more effective. Obviously, the primary role is to hold the Government to account. Ministers attend, and it can be quite informative, not only for Opposition Deputies but also backbench Deputies. I believe backbench Deputies, in particular, enjoy the committees more because they are not as restricted by the Whip, party or programme for Government as they are sometimes inside this Chamber. It is an area where one can flourish as a Deputy, whether in opposition or as a Government backbencher, because one teases out each line of legislation in contrast to the criticism often made that sometimes we rush legislation in the Chamber especially coming up to Christmas and the summer break. Such legislation is often found to be flawed by the Supreme Court at a later stage. I appeal to the Government to try not to slow down the legislative process but not to rush Committee Stage, because that is where issues are teased out line by line and where mistakes are spotted. Although we were on the opposite side on many occasions in the Chamber and on the justice committee, I and Mr. McDowell, when he was Minister, worked well and constructively together. He was a firm believer in ensuring that legislation could stand up to the highest standard of scrutiny in any court in the future if required.

It is vital for all Members to realise we have a responsibility to the public in this regard and must listen to the people. Committees are very useful in allowing community groups, campaign groups, trade unions, representative groups and concerned citizens and experts to make presentations. I have found these presentations to be most informative. Often, expert knowledge presented before legislation is prepared is vital. This is a mechanism committees should use more often and once they see the heads of a Bill from the Government, they should use the opportunity to invite experts to present to the committee prior to completion of the legislation. A document produced some years ago, entitled Regulating Better, suggested the Government should produce a regulatory impact assessment for all legislation and produce the heads of a Bill early enough for everyone in the Houses and the public to have some idea of what is coming down the track.

There are many other issues. I made a proposal to the Committee on EU Scrutiny that we should make more use of video-conferencing and a pilot study was to be done. I suggested when Máire Geoghegan-Quinn was selected as a Commissioner that rather than bringing her before a committee, we should use video-conferencing so that she, or any Commissioner who was presenting, could remain in their office and respond to questions from afar. This facility has not been used properly in the House so far and I would appeal for it to be used as one of the committee rooms has been set up for that purpose. If any Members here are appointed to committees, they should remember this proposal because it is currently buried.

See this speech in context