Vol. 404 No. 5
11 Mr. M. Higgins asked the Minister for Social Welfare if he will outline the criteria for issuing invitations to community groups to participate in his pre-budget consultative forum; the basis on which a group like Family Solidarity was invited; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
In framing my proposals for the budget I take account of all the views which are expressed to me by organisations and individuals either orally or in writing. These views are extremely important in helping me to formulate proposals which respond most effectively to the needs of people who rely on the social welfare system.
In 1988 for the first time I held a pre-budget forum for voluntary organisations. This forum gave an opportunity for a number of organisations, many of them broadly representative of different categories of social welfare recipients, to express to me and discuss with each other, their particular concerns with regard to the social welfare system.
Social welfare provisions for families constitute a very fundamental aspect of family policy. A number of social welfare schemes are specifically directed by families and I have had a specific focus on families in the various improvements which I have introduced. Recent studies have shown the central importance of support for families on low incomes in the context of developments in the social welfare system. I consider that the perspective of an organisation like Family Solidarity is useful to me in developing policies in this area and I valued their constructive contribution to the discussions.
Will the Minister agree that while the forum he speaks about is a useful addition to the previous system, people of experience and with an interest and an expertise in the areas to be covered are the people who should be invited? Bodies such as the Coolock Law Centre, the National Campaign for Welfare Reform, FLAC and the Dublin Welfare Rights Centre were not invited. The Irish National Organisation of the Unemployed got two days notice which was not adequate. Can the Minister explain why a misnamed organisation like Family Solidarity, the same people who opposed the abolition of illegitimacy and the Child Care Bill which protects children from physical and mental abuse, were invited? What possible interest could such an organisation have in assisting the Minister in formulating policy, or who do they think they speak for?
I want to correct the Deputy on one point, that is the question of the INOU. That body have been invited from the beginning. I know that this year they complained that for some reason they did not get their notification, but I will not go into that now. The staff in the Department contacted everybody at the same time. It happened that some members of the INOU were away at the time of the meeting and it would have suited them better to have those representatives present. As far as we are concerned we invited everybody in the same way.
I accept that.
The people who were invited had been involved in publicly debating these issues at the time, people who represented groups which had produced views about social welfare and what was required in social welfare. We certainly were not short of experts. We invited groups representing the various categories such as the Catholic Social Service Conference, the Federation of Pensioners Associations, the Union of Voluntary Organisations for the Handicapped, the National Association of Widowers in Ireland — this is the first time they were recognised and involved — the National Association of Widows in Ireland, the Society of St. Vincent de Paul, the Federation of Services for Unmarried Parents & Their Children and the Tallaght Welfare Society. There are many of other welfare societies but that society made submissions to me independently. They represented a community group who are very deeply involved in practical work and, therefore, we invited them. One could say that a lot of other welfare societies should have been invited also but it is not possible to have everybody present. The Irish National Organisation for the Unemployed were also invited. Women in the home expressed views about their situation. The Conference of Major Religious Superiors were invited in each of the years but they did not attend because they, apparently, preferred to have a separate meeting. All these groups are free to meet me separately. I am not aware that we have ever refused anybody a meeting.
What we were trying to do was get a cross section of views and find new solutions. That has proved to be very valuable, effective and useful, particularly where we are targeting resources. There are other fora to which other groups are invited. We will consider the matter again in the context of the next budget.
