Apologies have been received from Deputy Devins and Senator Browne. The minutes from the meeting of 5 October have been circulated to members. Are they agreed? Agreed.
Business of Joint Committee.
I wish to raise a matter, about which I have already spoken to the clerk. A report was published in Medicine Weekly criticising-----
We are in public session at the moment. Does the Senator wish to discuss this in private session?
Are we in public session?
Yes. Would the Senator prefer to discuss this matter in private session?
I do not mind if it is discussed in public or private.
It might be no harm to put it on the public record.
That is fine. We will remain in public session. I ask the Senator to proceed.
The article criticises this committee for not spending time with the MRSA people when they appeared before the committee. It is stated in the piece that only three members of the committee were present during that meeting, but that is not so. A large number of committee members were present at the start of the meeting but many had to leave for the Order of Business, which takes place at 10.30 a.m. I left the meeting when the second speaker, who spoke for quite a long time, had concluded because I did not want to interrupt the next speaker by leaving in the middle of his or her presentation.
I hope it is made clear to witnesses appearing before the committee that the Order of Business always takes place at 10.30 a.m. and that we are not being rude or disinterested when we leave at that time. Sometimes we table matters that are due to be dealt with on the Order of Business. While we can be in two places at the one time, we cannot be in three. Some sympathy must be extended to committee members on this matter. Quite a number of members were present for that meeting which began at 9.30 a.m. The witnesses came in at approximately 9.45 a.m. The article to which I referred suggests that we were not interested, but we were very interested. Unfortunately, we also had to attend to other matters.
I heard about the article but have not read it. It is a pity that tone was adopted because we agreed at the outset of that meeting that each speaker would address us for three minutes, but unfortunately that time limit was exceeded. The point will have to be made more forcefully in future. Yesterday I met the Whips to try to put a system in place whereby opening statements and presentations are confined to a certain number of minutes. The point must also be made at the beginning of each meeting that the business of the committee must be dealt with before 10.30 a.m. If people want to remain on after that to ask supplementary questions, they can do so.
I met the Whips yesterday and will talk to the wider group about the issue. If we can get agreement on a system from everybody, we will put it in place. It is unfortunate that message went out last week. Last Thursday, in particular, there was a debate in the House which many Members wished to attend for various reasons. The departure of members of this committee was not a sign of discourtesy. They were all in attendance when the meeting began. It is unfortunate that the message sent out was that committee members were not interested in the issue being discussed.
I pointed out during the meeting last week that the media also recognised that major issues were being dealt with in the House. Indeed, members of the media were not here to report on the proceedings but were covering events in the Dáil Chamber. We have no control over such matters. However, we must have more constrained meetings in terms of the length of presentations and responses and will do so from Thursday week next.
I thank the Chairman.
I felt it was a useful meeting as a follow-up process. The witnesses who attended were very well briefed and demonstrated that during the ensuing debate here. At least two Deputies who are not members of the committee came in and sat through a considerable amount of the debate. It was very frustrating to read that article which suggested a lack of respect was shown, which was not the case. Members are aware of the issue and have debated it in the past. The fact that the witnesses have appeared before us twice in the space of 12 months shows that we have a fair level of interest in the issue. If people read the records of committee meetings, they will see it is an issue that is raised regularly. We regularly try to have the issue addressed and that is our job — to highlight it. We cannot effect a cure for MRSA. However, we are at an advanced stage in terms of our knowledge and that should be placed on the record.
We will try to proceed and conduct our business effectively this morning.
I must leave at 10 a.m. to attend another meeting.
That is fine. We will go into private session to deal with the correspondence.
The joint committee went into private session at 9.45 a.m. and resumed in public session at 9.46 a.m.
On the issue of orthodontics, should we write to the Health Service Executive to find out what is causing the delay? The timescale we were given for its report is slipping. I am conscious that this Dáil term will be over before we receive the report.
To what report is the Deputy referring?
The HSE is conducting a review of orthodontic services and the report was due in June or July. I would like to know what the new timescale is. Perhaps the HSE could appear before the committee to explain the situation. I am aware that some members might not want to have a meeting on the issue but perhaps the sub-committee could meet the HSE on the matter.
Can we also include maxillofacial surgery, as recommended by Comhairle na nOspidéal in its ninth and final report?
We can do that.