How effective is the scrutiny role of TDs?

Committees are another which in which TDs can scrutinize the government and this too is subject to a lot of criticism. For example, there are four paid positions within each committee and TD’s are appointed to these positions by the Taoiseach, likely leaving them included to the point of view of the executive, as TD’s won’t “ bite the hand that feeds them”. Also as there are strong party loyalties in Ireland, it means that members of the majority party are less likely to scrutinize the government. The one-sidedness’s of committees in Ireland shows us that they are always under Government control and therefore they will not fulfil their role of holding the government to account and due to this, there has been very few times in which committees have successfully held the government to account, e.g. in 1999, an committee held the government to account over tax irregularities. Also due to the fact that TD’s have a lot of other important responsibilities and work to be doing, committees can add a lot of stress and pressure, which will likely, have a negative impact on the work they produce. For example due to the voting system in Ireland (STV), a lot of TD’s workload is heavily tilted towards constituency work due to the demands of the electorate, and neglecting their consistency to do committee work would be considered electorate suicide, as unlike Britain the biggest threat a TD can have, may come from their own party, therefore TD’s will have less time and interest in committee meetings. For example in 2002, 37% of current or past ministers in the Dail stated they had no interest in effective committee systems. However it is suggested that the Public Accounts committee is one of the best ways in which the opposition TDs can scrutinize the government.

Commencement and adjournments debates are used by TDs to discuss a day’s proceedings, but are largely predictable in nature; government ministers utilize these debates in order to defend themselves. In large, these lead to little more than theatrical bickering between parties and so are limited in just how effectively they are used. A debate can also be called in the form of a ‘motion of confidence’, whereby the Opposition will table a motion of no confidence in the government, disparaging the work of one or several ministers. This can be effective in drawing attention to problem areas in particular ministries and has twice caused the dismissal of a government (1982 and 1992). It can be argued however, to have much the same effect as adjournment debates, with the government simply tabling a motion of confidence in themselves. In addition to this, ad hoc debates can also be called in order to address issues of immediate concern. These perhaps prove the most effective form of debate in the Dail, allowing the Opposition to air their grievances on government failings but also providing cross-party consensus on matters of major development.