What is the Oireachtas for, asks Mark Brennock, after a strange week of "statements"
This week the Dáil and Seanad came back from their, er, Christmas break.
This return was a week earlier than the Government had originally planned. However, after much ritual Opposition complaint that the break was too long, the Government decided to bring everyone back a week early, although without the usual mechanisms for questioning the Taoiseach and his Ministers.
So on Tuesday deputies - well, some deputies - gathered for just three hours to hear statements on the EU presidency, 2.30 p.m. to 5.30 p.m. The "statements" format for Dáil proceedings does not allow for any inter- action or debate, as a dictionary would define it. Rather deputies or senators deliver speeches, usually from prepared scripts, but occasionally from notes, to a chamber which is usually close to empty unless the Taoiseach or an Opposition leader is speaking.
Wednesday morning had more "statements" - this time on the Development of Radiation Oncology Services. Then came three hours on the second stage of the Public Service (Recruitment and Appointments) Bill. The second stage is where deputies get to give their views on the principle of the Bill. Again, there is no interactive debate, just a few long speeches.
And on Thursday they sat for four hours. There were some speeches on the second stage of the Criminal Justice (Joint Investigation Teams) Bill 2003.
The Seanad sat for 4½ hours on Wednesday and just 2½ hours on Thursday. On Wednesday they had just under two hours of statements on a report on access to mental health services for people with intellectual disabilities, produced by the National Disability Authority. Then they had two hours' debate on a motion calling for the recognition of the Irish language as an official EU working language.
On Thursday there was an hour and 45 minutes of statements from eight senators on The Fourth Report of the Expert Group on Future Skills Needs, produced by Forfás. They adjourned for the day at 1 p.m., in time for lunch.
It is fashionable at this point for the columnist to take a sanctimonious swipe at politicians for being a bunch of lay-abouts. But here's the odd thing: many of the contributions from TDs and senators on the various topics were well researched and displayed a serious intellectual engagement with important issues.
Roscommon-based Senator Frank Feighan made a substantial and thoughtful contribution on the availability and appropriateness of mental health services. Geraldine Feeney, a Fianna Fáil Sligo-based senator, did likewise. Others with better known names such as Joe O'Toole also put work into what they had to say. The contributions in the Dáil on the EU presidency were generally of a high standard too.
But what was the purpose of all this? Will the staging of a ritualistic Dáil session on the EU presidency have any impact on anything?
And what was the purpose of Senator Feighan and others preparing their considered contributions on mental health, or of senators speaking on future skills needs? This was not a forum where policy is formulated and it appears that nothing said during that debate was reported anywhere - although this newspaper did report the debate on the status of the Irish language.
Senator Feighan said the National Disability Authority report "makes depressing reading for those of us in public life who have a role to play in the development of public policy and services". The question is whether the TDs and senators who this week made intelligent contributions to debate were playing any role "in the development of public policy and services".
And if not, what were they doing?