Maureen O'Sullivan (Dublin Central, Independent)

-----not only for the sake of change but because change is needed. Our motion states that we want change to rebuild Ireland's political system into an effective, accountable, transparent, representative and participatory institution. Wisdom, common sense, insight, vision and a desire to be meaningful and effective are not confined to those in government, in this case Fine Gael and the Labour Party or, if I had been speaking a year ago, Fianna Fáil and the Green Party. It does not follow that as soon as one crosses the Chamber into government automatically wisdom and insight are instilled. Those in opposition are not lacking in those qualities. We need to move from the adversarial nature of politics so when an issue presents itself everyone is not only given the space and speaking time to articulate views on it but there is a genuine way to engage and for Government parties of whatever political persuasion to acknowledge they do not have the monopoly on wisdom and what is best for the country.

We are part of a very powerful system which has been dominant and continues to dominate, making it difficult to bring about change. Often, we express our frustration at the system and our apparent inability to change it. There is a genuine desire for change and we cannot allow the system to dominate this desire. As it stands, power is with the Cabinet. It is almost like that as soon as the elections are over and the Cabinet positions distributed, the rest of the Deputies can toddle off home. Other than being a thorn in the side of the establishment, valuable and all as that is, what is the role of Opposition Deputies if most of what is said in opposition is not taken seriously or in a way that can bring about real change?

It looks as though the new arrangements for committees are being presented as a fait accompli. I have been on committees all my life and the most effective committees are those with small numbers and a very definite focused piece of work. A committee must be meaningful. There must be a consistent interested membership with a real role. Committees need people with a genuine interest in its work and not there just to make up the numbers.

Some time ago, we had statements on committees and I wonder how much of that debate has seen its way into the new system of committees. The new committees proposed for the Dáil are heavy in numbers with wide briefs to cover a huge range of areas. This will be cumbersome and will prevent real work. They will be dominated by the Government parties and I want to know why the cherries are given to Government Deputies only. Is this democratic? There should be no remuneration for chairing. Adequate time for meetings is needed, scheduled to avoid interruptions by bells for votes. If people or Departments come before a committee there must be a valid reason with an outcome in mind. Each meeting should have an item on the agenda of actions decided that is followed up at future meetings. Our motion seeks an increase in the powers of committees to allow for input before the initial drafting of legislation.

In regard to Private Members' time, if I am a member of a political grouping or party which proposes a motion, I must automatically agree with it. If I am part of the grouping or party which tables the amendment, I must automatically agree with that. However, as an Independent, I have the luxury of considering the motion. I do not have a political party agenda and I can act based on the principles in which I believe - principles of social justice and fairness. In the past I have found myself agreeing with aspects of the motion and aspects of the amendment. I then face a dilemma when it comes to a vote. Surely, in Private Members' time at least, the party whip system could be removed to allow for genuine debate.

In regard to questions, what is the point in having questions to the Taoiseach in one time section with the exact same questions later on? There is a need for space to question the Taoiseach but there needs to be a way to tackle the repetition. Questions to Ministers are vital with the right to supplementary questions and I would like that extended to matters on the Adjournment when the answer provided does not answer the question. We need more time for questions to the Taoiseach and Ministers and we need a topical issues section.

Why are questions taken on proposed legislation when a call to the Bills Office would elicit the same information? The danger is that because we have done something in the same way for so long, it is easier to keep going in that way rather than look at the efficiency or otherwise of it and try to bring about change.

I support what Deputy Luke 'Ming' Flanagan said about local government. The next local government elections will be in 2014 so now is the time to get moving on that debate. I spent some months on Dublin City Council and I was always struck by the number of public servants at meetings, which were at double figures, and the number of public representatives, which was a single figure. I was amazed at times by the inefficiency of that system.

We come to the House to speak on legislation, statements and Private Members' time but what is the point if the Government has already made up its mind on them? Statements should be a way to develop policy on an issue.

In regard to reducing the number of Deputies, we should first look at the work of Deputies and the numbers will follow from that. The same should apply to the Seanad. Let us look at what it is supposed to do and how that can be done better before deciding to abolish it.

I was very fortunate to be a teacher for many years. I knew I was in a career in which I made a difference. I am not saying I was indispensable; I do not believe anybody is but I know I made a difference. I would like to be able to say in whatever time I spent here that I can make a difference but sometimes the system we have prevents that.

See this speech in context