Maureen O'Sullivan (Dublin Central, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I am committed to parliamentary democracy. As a woman, I am always conscious of my rights because I live in a democracy when so many women and girls across the world do not. I agree that we need greater efficiency in our parliamentary democracy and the programme for Government set out certain reforms in this regard. However, decreasing the number of Deputies and constituencies without addressing the work of Members is only window-dressing. Increasing the number of sitting hours and days is not going to bring about greater efficiency, unless one tackles the source of inefficiencies in the first place.

It was seen as a reform to increase the size of the parliamentary committees and widen their agendas. However, as we all know, narrower agendas and smaller committees work much better. It will be interesting to see how this new plan for strategic, sectoral and thematic committees will work. I can imagine the pressure on the four strategic committees and in the vying for a place on them. I hope it will be done fairly.

It has been proposed to increase the time available for debates and the standard sitting week which will, accordingly, reduce the number of occasions on which the guillotine will be used. I know we cannot talk forever on a particular topic, but there still has been an increase in the use of the guillotine. We do not have proper engagement with Ministers except on Topical Issues. How can a system under which a Minister stands up with a prepared script for 20 minutes and who cannot be interrupted be seen as efficient or offering interaction? The system is also weighted against the Independents.

Whether the Dáil, the Oireachtas and the powers that be like it or not, there are 19 independent Deputies, 16 of whom are allied to the Technical Group. Standing Orders must keep up with the democratic will of the people. I do not know where we come in the pecking order but it is very far down, if we are there at all on some stages. Why can the clock not be used during Leaders' Questions to ensure everybody has an equal amount of time? Standing Orders are there to enable and assist parliamentary democracy to work efficiently, effectively and fairly. The language in Standing Orders is archaic and convoluted. Could we not have it in simple sentences, each with a subject, predicate and object?

I have no problem sitting every second Friday provided it is productive and does not descend into what parliamentary debate currently is, namely, vicious slagging matches. This morning was a perfect example of that. We are talking about greater engagement with civil society in the pre-legislative stage. We are denying civil society the opportunity to come in and use the audio-visual room. I cannot understand where that is coming from. I was with a disability group yesterday. They cannot come in here and meet their Deputies, in a place that is wheelchair accessible and free of charge. That is not as it should be.

See this speech in context