‘Deep flaws of Oireachtas committees’

Parliamentary scrutiny

Sir, – In his piece on the effectiveness of recent Oireachtas committee hearings, Gerry Naughton correctly criticises the division of the available time into 10-minute slots for each member (“RTÉ hearings show the deep flaws of Oireachtas committees. Here’s how to make them work better”, Opinion & Analysis, July 24th).

As with so many aspects of our political culture, this practice appears to have been deliberately imported from the US where the division of time in this way is a feature of committee hearings in the Congress. While this might be effective in a polarised two-party system, where at least some level of coordination can be expected, it is completely ineffective in a system comprised of representatives of six political parties and Independents who, because of our ridiculous multi-seat constituency system, have an incentive to compete with each other and play to the gallery.

To Mr Naughton’s four proposed changes, I would add a fifth – that in addition to reforming their role as fact-finding bodies, committees should urgently address their wholly inadequate role in law-making.

The scrutiny of legislation within the Houses of the Oireachtas has all but collapsed in the last decade. Pre-legislative scrutiny of government proposals by committees, introduced with much fanfare in 2011, has become little more than window-dressing with new policies regularly being nodded through with only cosmetic changes.

READ MORE

Committee scrutiny of Bills themselves has crumbled to almost laughable levels. For example, the Criminal Justice (Incitement to Hatred and Hate Offences) Bill 2022, which has generated significant controversy among the public at large, received less than 90 minutes of consideration by the nine-member Oireachtas Justice Committee last February. Incredibly, none of the Fianna Fáil or Fine Gael members of the committee uttered a single word during the debate. Was there really nothing to be said?

Last December important legislation to reform the Personal Injuries Assessment Board passed through committee and report stages in the Seanad in just eight minutes, with not a single Senator from any party contributing so much as a comma on the proposals.

No other parliament in Europe would conduct itself in this way, so why does our Oireachtas?

There is little point in committees scrutinising governance failures at RTÉ for as long as they singularly fail in their own basic constitutional duty to properly scrutinise legislation which will have far-reaching consequences for many of those whom they represent. – Yours, etc,

BARRY WALSH,

Dublin 3.

Sir, – Further to Gerry Naughton’s excellent article on Oireachtas committees, I would argue that the loss of so many experienced TDs over the last decade has had a detrimental impact on the effectiveness of these bodies.

For example, I find it difficult to ever accept that a veteran TD, such as the late Jim Mitchell, would have accepted the submission of considerable amounts of documentation to his committee at 8.30 on the morning of a public hearing.

Of course, many politicians have been rejected by the electorate but several others have retired prematurely. In this regard, we need to be more understanding of the steep learning curve faced by newly elected TDs and commence a serious conversation as to what has made the practice of politics deeply unattractive to so many of our public representatives. – Yours, etc,

PJ O’MEARA,

Cahir,

Co Tipperary.

Sir, – One of the issues that gets aired is the concern of having two committees investigate the same thing. This is a matter which the Ceann Comhairle has already addressed when apologising to Angela Kerins after the Supreme Court ruled in her favour in the aftermath of her 2014 appearance before the Public Accounts Committee, saying that “The idea of witnesses coming before two or three committees is patently ridiculous.” – Yours, etc,

MICHAEL GANNON,

Kilkenny.

Sir, – As ever, your editorial on the Oireachtas is prudent (“Vital work to hold power to account”, July 24th). Accountability is a reactive process that punishes negative actions after they occur. What is needed, and this will bridle with many TDs, is an increased professionalism of committees through enhanced training. Professionalism should result in a need to punish far fewer things and result in financial savings and an increased trust in major institutions. – Yours, etc,

ENDA CULLEN,

Armagh.