You can sit there for hours listening to other people ventilating their views Baroness Greenfield

Parliament would grind to a halt without them.

But what do they actually achieve?

Very little, according to Labour peer and leading neurobiologist Baroness Susan Greenfield.

She believes Britain is becoming addicted to collective decision making - at the expense of individual responsibility.

Social pressure

She is calling for a halt to the growth of Britain's committee culture, before our institutions sink into paralysis.

"I think they (committees) should be kept to the minimum because they do waste people's time.

I have been present for some very exciting, creative decisions in committees Sir Christopher Frayling

"You can sit there for hours listening to other people ventilating their views, trying to get a word in edgeways, when really you can be doing something much more productive," she told BBC Radio 4's Today programme.

Above all else, she argues, the committee stifles originality.

"The problem with committees is that there is a consensus mood that operates.

"If someone wants to say something original or different or out of line, the social pressure not to do so is quite great."

'Exciting decisions'

Chairman of the Arts Council and committee veteran, Sir Christopher Frayling, also warns of the dangers of retreating into "committee land".

But, he argues, there are certain decisions, on the distribution of government funds to the arts for example, which cannot be made by an individual.

"I think committees can be extremely effective. It depends on the mix," he argues.

"I have been present for some very exciting, creative decisions in committees, which would not have been made - and could not have been made - by individuals."

What do you think? Here are some of your comments:

We the committee (undersigned) have collectively come to the conclusion that a collective decision-making process can be productive in some circumstances unless otherwise stated herein. As Composite 29(B) clearly states, it is up to the committee members both individually and collectively to voice their opinions on matters, where they feel it appropriate, whilst excluding occasions where they feel that the majority view is to be otherwise... Seriously though, they're a waste of time. Run your committee like I do, on the Blair Cabinet model: Make the decisions before the meeting, then use the meeting to allocate responsibility. You can get them down to an hour tops.
James, London, UK

Sometimes a committee is just not the right tool for the job. There's a small boat club at my old college that was wrecked by an apathetic committee. I "seized power" just by showing an interest, scrapped the committee and built a hierarchy instead. We needed quick decisions and that worked well for us, although it was decidedly undemocratic. Ultimately a small committee with a respected and keen chair should be able to work just as well.
Russ, London, UK

As a member of a committee I agree whole heartedly! The amount of time I have spent listening to others as the argue the point about the most insignificant of matters is depressing. I wouldn't mind so much if we reached a decision but we rarely do, meaning the subject at hand ends up going round and round and ends up pushing our meetings late into the night and in most cases meaning we have to meet again to try and make a decision. Plus there is always the fear of not speaking your mind in case you hurt the feelings of another member. The phrase too many cooks spoiling the broth really comes into practice!
Nicola, London, UK

There are 2 types of committee: 1. Made up of specialists in multiple fields pooling their knowledge and skills. 2. Made up of people with the same knowledge and skills who discuss things The first can result in brilliant merges of ideas and styles to produce a truly great outcome. The second generally ends up as a talking shop with individuals disagreeing on minor points of personal opinion and results in a large waste of time. A committee should have a clear end point, clear timescales and be made up of only those people who's skills/knowledge are needed.
Chris, Salisbury, Wilts

Make committee members stand up - that way the decisions will probably be taken in the minimum amount of time, and with the minimum amount of yackering.
Richard, Leek, UK

Committees are part of a democratic process and can serve to share institutional talents and values in the workplace. From this perspective, committees serve an important practical purpose - providing they do not devolve into 'therapy sessions' or stagnate with conservatism. I think what is important about Baroness Greenfield's comment is that it reflects an elitist perspective of the World, or Empire(?): Does the Baroness tire of democratic ideals in practice in the workplace, or is she waiting for the next 'saviour' to sweep this process aside? As far as committees in politics, it should be the people who are innovative and the elected government should facilitate that innovation--not the other way around.
Brian, Chicago

Would the Baroness's views on committees have anything to do with the fact that two of them recently rebuffed an attempt to make her a Fellow of the Royal Society?
Gerard , London

Committee meetings need to have a strict time-table and agenda that gets stuck to and is announced at the beginning. people should then have a maximum of 5 mins to talk and then they should stop! people should then go away with all the information gathered and come up with ideas then. The next best thing to do is to have a conclusion committee meeting, where everyone puts their views forward and then have a vote: simple but effective democracy, but obviously not that great for people who love the sound of their own voice or who have vested reasoning. Without structure, committee meetings tend to end up with people trying to speak, then not trying for fear of reprimand or self doubt and the only structure that then comes in is a political/hierarchical one; and that itself is a restriction on expressing views and leads to intolerance and ignorance. Just look at how much contempt the Bush 'Committee'/administration has for true democracy and freedom of speech, and how it tends to only listen to itself. This is an excellent example of when committees disappear too far up their own a***s!
Max Richards, Wales

I shall bring this matter up at my next committee
Kevin Morton, London, England

"Committees are, by nature, timid. They are based on the premise of safety in numbers; content to survive inconspicuously, rather than take risks and move independently ahead. Without independence, without the freedom for new ideas to be tried, to fail, and to ultimately succeed, the world will not move ahead, but live in fear of it's own potential." THOMAS EDISON
Ben, Cheltenham

Public sector is paralysed by committees in a culture where backside covering is more important than taking calculated risks to get things done quickly in creative ways. That's why I left for the private sector where I now have responsibility for my own actions, make my own decisions on what will improve the business within the context of my team, and hold myself responsible for my mistakes. Mistakes are healthy so long as you learn from them and only make the same mistake once.
Paul Hill, UK

Committees are good for reducing the brilliance in every member to the lowest common denominator. I have lost count of the number of "committee meetings" and "steering group meetings" I've sat through listening to one whiner after another grinding their axes on why this or that had to be done their way. What usually happens is that the people who know what they are doing get sidelined while the people who know the least shout the loudest and people give them what they want to shut them up.
John B, UK

The BBC may edit your comments and not all emails will be published. Your comments may be published on any BBC media worldwide.