Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 28 Apr 1993

Vol. 429 No. 7

Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Family Mediation Service.

Liz McManus

Question:

11 Ms McManus asked the Minister for Equality and Law Reform if, in regard to his recent announcement regarding the proposed extension of the Family Mediation Service, he will say when the service will be available outside of Dublin; the centres in which it will be located; the extra staff and resources that will be provided; if the service will be free to the public as was the case with the pilot service; and if he will make a statement on the matter.

Following on my meeting with staff and committee members of the Family Mediation Service at their headquarters in the Irish Life Centre, Dublin on 10 March 1993 I announced my intention of strengthening the service. It is too early to say how the existing service will be affected and what the implications will be for persons living outside of Dublin. The Deputy will appreciate that further development of the service can take place only after careful consideration has been given to all the relevant factors, including finance, in order to ensure that scarce resources will be used in the most effective manner.

In relation to these priority questions, I feel a certain sense of injustice because my question — which I feel is very important — is now being squeezed in; indeed we have gone over time as you have pointed out. I understood that the manner in which these priority questions are structured meant that they were carved out proportionate to the representation in this House but that once we reach a priority question, I am as equal as any Member who has tabled a priority question. That is not the case——

No, time permitting, Deputy.

It is not possible that each question be allocated an amount of time rather than them being bundled together which means that inevitably, no matter what question I ask, I will be deemed to be out of order?

The Deputy will agree that the Chair does his best to secure equity.

I know that; that is why I am seeking your guidance.

To facilitate Deputy McManus and if the Minister were agreeable, for my part I would have no objection to Deputy McManus's question being treated as an ordinary question to allow her ask additional supplementaries.

I would ask the Deputy not to place the Chair in a more invidious position. I am allowing the Deputy to put a relevant supplementary question.

This is a matter to which the Chair might give some consideration, if possible; that is why I am raising the issue. I do not expect an answer now.

It is a matter for the Committee on Procedure and Privileges on which the Deputy's party is represented.

I wish to thank the Chair for his guidance. In relation to this question, would the Minister agree that at present there is tremendous inequity in that people living outside of Dublin are unable to avail of what is really a superb service — the Family Mediation Service? Would the Minister agree that that service is now overloaded even though it deals primarily with Dublin people? Would he agree that if divorce legislation, as is likely, is introduced next year, it is vital in terms of equality, that there be a mediation service nationwide? The service should be freely available to people, and it should not be the case that mediation and/or divorce is available only to those who can afford it? Can the Minister give an indication of the structure he intends to put in place and the locations where we might expect to see such service being made available to people? Can the Minister ensure the kind of flexibility and freedom of operation at present applicable to the Family Mediation Service will be continued, even on a statutory basis, because there is concern that there will be inflexibility built into the system if there is a change in the way it is structured?

I agree with the Deputy and I pay tribute to the remarkable service provided by the Family Mediation Service. Having seen that service in operation and heard of the work that is being done I was tremendously impressed. It is regrettable that the service is largely confined to Dublin. However, so great is their reputation that many people avail of the service from as far afield as Cork and Galway.

I cannot say exactly how the structure will evolve. As the Deputy is aware, there are other voluntary groups doing some very important and valuable mediation work. In addition, there are quite a number of professional mediators. Many of them charge very high fees, and run that service on a strictly commercial basis. Ultimately there will have to be a judicious mix between the State and the voluntary services. They also have a very important role to play. If divorce is introduced we will need a contribution from both sectors.

The nucleus established by the Family Mediation Service is very valuable. For example, there are in-house training courses for mediators. I have discussed with the service the potential of their operating as a nucleus to expand that service to other parts of the country. They indicated that they would be very happy to do so and have the requisite expertise to do so. We are extremely lucky to have them. I cannot say exactly how the service will work out. Much will depend on the availability of resources. It is my intention during the year to endeavour to ensure the maximum possible resources and to plan their best use. Whether the service should be preserved, without any charge in all cases, or whether there should be a fee charged to enable the service to be expanded, will have to be examined. I can see both sides of the argument.

Top
Share