Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 21 Jul 1993

Vol. 433 No. 9

DÁIL SELECT COMMITTEES AND JOINT COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS: STATEMENTS (RESUMED). - Select Committee on Social Affairs.

Mr. Pattison

As chairman of the Select Committee on Social Affairs, I wish to report to the House on the work to date of that committee.

The committee held its first meeting on 13 May 1993 when it elected me as chairman. Since then we have considered the following Estimates: Department of Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht, Votes 42, 43 and 44, 21 May; Department of Education, Votes 26 to 29, 11 June; Department of Health, Vote 41, 17 June; and, on 22 June, Department of Social Welfare, Vote 40. Prior to the consideration of the Estimates meetings took place between the convenors, departmental officials and me, as chairman, to discuss and acquaint ourselves with the procedures.

On 15 July the committee met to consider the Matrimonial Home Bill, 1993. However, it has not yet completed Committee Stage. Again, prior to the consideration of Committee Stage, as provided for under paragraph 8 of the terms of reference of the committee, a briefing session took place between the members of the committee and officials of the Department of Equality and Law Reform.

It will be noted that the committee has considered the Estimates for the three biggest spending Departments; the Departments of Social Welfare, Health and Education. The Estimates for these three Departments alone amount to £5.5 billion which represents approximately 63 per cent of total supply services expenditure. The meetings of the committee were attended by the appropriate Minister in all cases.

Initially, no time constraints were laid down by the Dáil for the consideration of Estimates. An order of the Dáil was passed on 15 June 1993 instructing the committee to meet on a certain date to consider and conclude all Estimates relevant to a particular Department. However, as members of the committee felt that more time might be required, especially when discussing Estimates for a big spending Department, this was subsequently amended to allow, with the agreement of the Minister and the committee, more time to be allocated for consideration of a particular Estimate.

With the co-operation of members and the Ministers concerned, the committee completed consideration of the Estimates within the time laid down by the Dáil. Most, if not all Deputies would agree that the consideration of the Estimates by the committee has been successful and has enabled members of the committee and, indeed, the House to elicit information from Ministers and to make valuable contributions in a less formal atmosphere than in a committee of the whole Dáil. The report of the committee on the Estimates was laid before the Dáil on 26 June.

As I have stated, the committee met last Thursday consider the Matrimonial Home Bill and has arranged to meet again on Wednesday and Thursday, 8 and 9 September to consider it further. It is hoped to complete Committee Stage by mid September. It is anticipated that in addition to the two days already set aside in September that possibly two further days will have to be set aside to complete Committee Stage.

The success of a committee depends to a large extent on the resources available to it. A clerk has been appointed to the committee but no specific back-up staff have been provided. It is essential that these be provided, including clerical staff, as soon as possible. We expect the workload of the committee to increase and the terms of reference to expand. Therefore, the secondment or appointment of senior staff to the committee will be required.

Under its terms of reference the committee has the power to engage the services of persons with specialist or technical knowledge to assist it or any of its subcommittees in their consideration of matters comprehended by its terms of reference. However, to date no budget has been allocated to the committee. The liaison committee which allocates funds to the committee has not yet met. As part of its brief members of this committee will undoubtedly have to attend relevant meetings or conferences from time to time and it would be appropriate to make a specific allocation from the appropriate Vote for this purpose.

The committee feels that its terms of reference are somewhat restrictive and limit the committee in initiating its own agenda. As well as considering Estimates, the Committee Stage of Bills and reports referred to it by Dáil Éireann in the areas of social welfare, health, education, labour law, the Gaeltacht and equality the committee is empowered to consider the impact on equality of policy and legislation relevant to these areas. This wording appears to allow only a discussion on equality issues under the headings of policy and existing legislation. The committees seeks clarification. For example, in the area of health the committee would like to be able to consider the implementation of childcare legislation.

Members of the committee have suggested that paragraph 7 of the terms of reference which allows the committee to invite submissions in writing should be amended to allow oral submissions to be made to the committee. Other chairmen have made the point today that the question of privilege for witnesses who appear before the committee to give oral evidence would arise. In this regard the committee asked me to write to the Taoiseach requesting legislation to be introduced without delay to deal with this matter but the Taoiseach was unable to give a precise date for the introduction of legislation.

The committee would like to be in a position to agree to a work programme to facilitate members who would like to know in advance, so far as possible, what legislation is likely to be referred to the committee for consideration. There are many reports which the committee would also like to consider.

I should mention that a problem has arisen in taking divisions. There is a need to put a mechanism in place to ensure that members not in the meeting room or within the precincts of the House are alerted in good time when a division is called. This problem is encountered at all committees. I hope it will be considered by the Committee on Procedure and Privileges.

In conclusion, I thank the members of the committee for their co-operation and active participation in the work of the committee; the Ministers and Ministers of State who have attended the meetings of the committee with their officials; the officials of this House who help the committee, including the clerk and the convenors, Deputy Mary Flaherty, more recently Deputy Paul Bradford and Deputy Bell for their help and co-operation.

Mr. Bradford

As there is no Government Minister present to observe proceedings I am not sure to whom I should speak, whether it is to you as Chairman or to the committee chairperson, Deputy Pattison. I do not wish to comment on the absence of a Minister but it would be worthwhile if Ministers in whose area of responsibility——

Mr. Leonard

On a point of order, I understand that Ministers are attending a Cabinet meeting dealing with very important business.

Mr. Flanagan

The Dáil is important too.

Mr. Allen

This is the most important matter——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Paul Bradford, without interruption.

Mr. Bradford

I wish to point out in a non-political fashion that it would be helpful if Ministers responsible for Departments whose Estimates we debate were present to listen to our observations.

To the vast majority of the public, for the last week or two Dáil Éireann has been on holidays. The fact that the vast majority of people do not know that committees are still meeting shows a lack of public interest in politics, the Dáil and the committees, and that is disappointing. In the last number of years there has been much public cynicism of and a lack of interest in politics. I hope the work of the committees will improve the image of politics and politicians and will prove to people that politics is relevant to their lives.

The idea behind the setting up of committees is excellent. Fine Gael, particularly its Leader, Deputy Bruton, has loudly and clearly advocated the case for committees down the years. The work of the committees since their formation a couple of months ago has been positive. Much more must be done but we are moving in the right direction. One of the positive aspects of the committees is that they help to remove one element of Irish politics which impacts on public life, that is the "winner takes all" approach. The 15 people who sit around the Cabinet table appear to be the only people who have any say in matters. Government backbenchers perhaps even junior Ministers and certainly everybody on this side of the House, is entirely removed from the decision-making process. The committee system provides an opportunity for all Members to contribute and for Ministers to listen to our suggestions. For that reason the committees are welcome. They are working and I hope they will have an impact. Democracy is important and committees allow everybody, particularly backbenchers, to participate in a meaningful fashion in the political process.

As a rural Deputy — many of my colleagues represent rural constituencies — I have to admit that in terms of winning votes, which is very important, we would probably more easily gain votes by being in our constituencies than by being present in this Chamber. The focus must be on this Chamber. Our role must appear to be relevant and one way of ensuring that is by expanding the committee system. Very few people know that we are here today and even fewer are concerned about it.

I agree with the point made by a number of speakers about the need for an opening up of committees. For example, the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs has power to meet outside groups. Its chairperson, Deputy Lenihan, mentioned the various groups with which it has met in the last number of weeks. It would be a welcome step if all committees had such power. The matters under the responsibility of this committee, such as health, social welfare, eduation and so on, have a great bearing on people's lives. There are thousands of statutory and voluntary groups involved in these areas and the committee should have an opportunity to meet representatives of these groups to discuss matters of policy with them. That would prove that politicians have a say and that you do not have to sit at the Cabinet table to have a real role in politics. It is essential that all committees have an opportunity to meet with groups to discuss and debate issues. Public hearings must be advocated and I hope that in future we will move in that direction.

The workload of Dáil Deputies must be noted. If we are to play an active and full role in committees and plenary sessions of Dáil Éireann we must have extra facilities. All of us are expected to be legislators and facilitators in our constituencies. It is becoming increasingly difficult to fill these roles with limited resources. As politicians we are probably the worst people to defend our own case. We are very apologetic about seeking extra facilities and staff. With only one secretarial assistant available to the vast majority of Members, it is very difficult to research policy, meet outside interest groups, come in here to debate legislation and hold clinics in our constituencies. Mention was made of the need for extra facilities for committees but if we are to do our job properly extra facilities are essential for the Members of Dáil Éireann.

I will briefly comment on the aspects of policy covered already. The committee debated Estimates for Education, Health, Social Welfare, Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht and so on. I am disappointed that adequate time was not provided to discuss some of these Estimates. The budgets for social welfare, health and education constitute a huge proportion of GNP. Only a few hours was made available to discuss the Social Welfare Estimates involving the expenditure of £3.5 billion. If matters such as these are to be properly debated adequate time must be made available. I hope that in the next session we will become masters of our own destiny and will be able to spend more time debating crucial issues. We have a long way to go and I hope some of the suggestions made today will be taken on board in the next few months.

Ms O'Donnell

I propose to share my time with Deputy Quill.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Ms O'Donnell

The Select Committee on Social Affairs is a very important committee, set up to deal with Committee Stages of legislation, with Estimates and with supplementary reports on social welfare, health, education, equality, labour affairs and the Gaeltacht. Sadly to date we have been confined to discussing the Estimates relevant to those areas, with discussion on one Bill only, the long awaited Matrimonial Home Bill, on which we have reached only the halfway stage. While that Committee Stage debate so far has been very interesting, the outstanding matters to be dealt with in regard to improving the competence of these committees if they are to really work and effect change in this House, mean that legislation empowering us to call witnesses and to demand papers is vital. For example, in the case of the Matrimonial Home Bill, 1993, the Incorporated Law Society could have been invited to participate in the Committee Stage debate since the fine-tuning of that Bill is most important from a conveyancing point of view. Likewise, the report of the Kilkenny incest case could have been thoroughly investigated by the Select Committee on Social Affairs, when we could have compelled witnesses from the health boards to appear before the committee and carried out an in-depth examination of what went wrong.

I look forward to the introduction and passage of the legislation ensuring the compellability of witnesses which was promised as a priority in the Programme for Government, but six months later it has not been introduced.

I should like to turn now to a Bill which did not come before the Select Committee on Social Affairs which is a great tragedy. Yesterday the Supreme Court cast a shadow over the constitutional rights of Irish women to information and travel, one which women felt had been lifted by the unanimous approval of the two referenda dealing with information and travel last November. Indeed it should not be forgotten that the guarantee of those rights comprised part of a deal made with Irish women on the passing of the Maastricht Treaty and Protocol. Therefore, the majority decision of the Supreme Court yesterday — when it refused to lift the injunction restricting Irish women's rights to information and travel — was really an exercise in judicial fancy foot work, the majority decision relying on the jurisdictional and technical point to avoid lifting the injunction which, by implication, accepts that women's rights in this area can be postponed until the relevant legislation is introduced. I agree with Mrs. Justice Susan Denham when she said that the postponment is a denial of that right. Constitutional rights, such as those to travel and information, should not be subordinate to or dependent on promised legislation, which was the majority decision of the Supreme Court handed down yesterday. We were promised that legislation in the Programme for Government. Where is it? It has been on the desk of the Minister for Health since he assumed office, yet he is willing to say to Irish women that they must wait although their constitutional rights are contingent on the passage of that legislation. What is the Minister's view on yesterday's supreme Court judgment?

The Attorney General appears to be very selective in his role as protector of the Constitution. The House will recall that he was not shy in protecting the rights of the unborn in the X case but his silence is deafening today when women's constitutional rights have been threatened. The silence of the Minister for Health and, more remarkably, that of the Minister for Equality and Law Reform is evident. Indeed the only voice we have heard on this matter has been the clear, unambigous, furious, very strong dissenting one of the only female member of our Supreme Court, Mrs. Justice Susan Denham. If the law is as stated yesterday by the majority decision of the Supreme Court, it represents a double-cross on Irish women, the women who voted in favour of the Maastricht Treaty. I made a party political broadcast on behalf of my party urging women to vote in favour of the Maastricht Treaty, telling them that the referenda would guarantee those rights. Now we hear from the Supreme Court that nothing is certain any longer, that we must await the relevant empowering legislation.

It should also be pointed out that this injunction runs contrary to the Irish Constitution and to the Convention on Human Rights as stated by the court in Strasbourg last November. Indeed the Supreme Court has taken four months to find, circuitously, a technical reason for not lifting the injunction and has thrown the ball back into the court of this House to legislate on the detail of the amendments to the Constitution. I agree that this House is the correct forum to tease out and have a healthy, full and frank debate on all sides of the substantive issue of abortion. However, I do not agree that fundamental simple rights referring to information and travel must be embodied in legislation and that they must be postponed until that legislation has been passed.

For example, there is no legislation promised in this House with regard to the right to travel. If we are to go on the basis of yesterday's Supreme Court judgment, there is no such right to travel and no promised legislation in relation thereto. Are women free to leave this State to avail of services legally available in others?

The duty to legislate on information and on the substantive issue of abortion has been put on the long finger by this Government. The silence of the Minister for Health, the Taoiseach and the Attorney General — all of whom have been so vocal on constitutional integrity and the upholding of constitutional rights in the past — places such integrity in doubt in that they appear to be selective in their protection of constitutional rights. For example, there is never any danger of the rights of the unborn not being voiced whereas women's rights have been put at the bottom of the ladder of priority of this Government; women's rights always seem to languish at the bottom of the Government agenda. For example, it has taken 20 years for the Bill on matrimonial property to be introduced containing rights to equal ownership of the family home. The necessary legislation with regard to information and travel has been postponed because of fear. I am so ashamed, particularly of the Labour component of this Government, because after all their talk and guarantees to women, they still have not introduced this legislation; they have agreed to the postponement of rights which had been guaranteed prior to the Maastricht Treaty. Indeed by the time this legislation is introduced in the House one year will have elapsed since the trauma of the X case and the unanimous approval by the electorate of the two referenda which confirmed the rights to freedom of information and travel. I really cannot believe that women's rights to information and travel have been reversed and, as Mrs. Justice Susan Denham said yesterday, set at nought.

That legislation should have been dealt with by the Select Committee on Social Affairs but has not been to date.

Miss Quill

I welcome the committee system which is a step in the direction of Dáil reform. If the changes outlined by my party Leader here this morning are affected, those committees will prove to be an invaluable part of our democratic system. I hope that Deputy O'Malley's recommendations will be noted and acted on so that this system, can be improved to the point to where these committees will become major engines for growth in the future.

I compliment the Chairman of the Select Committee on Social Affairs on the gracious manner in which he discharged his duties to date.

The Select Committee on Social Affairs has a very broad brief as it deals with issues touching the daily lives of ordinary people and their families. We are talking about education, health, social welfare, art and culture. It is important that all these issues are discussed in great depth within the confines of this committee. It is important also that issues that may arise in the course of a year affecting the workings of those Departments are fully discussed.

In recent weeks we discussed the Estimate for Health but we did not discuss the inevitable impact of increased telephone charges on health, caring and community health catered for by the voluntary sector — carers and the help lines. A special meeting of this committee should be convened before September to discuss the impact of increased telephone charges on that sector of community care with a view to effecting whatever changes are necessary to enable that voluntary part of our health care to continue. We should remember if that part of our health care collapsed in the morning and the State was compelled to pick up the tab, its cost would make the cost of the Aer Lingus rescue package look like peanuts. This committee should convene a special meeting to deal with that item in depth and to make recommendations to the Minister to ensure that steps will be taken to offset the effects of those charges on help lines, voluntary sectors and on the carers.

Ms McManus

The Select Committee on Social Affairs has offered us an opportunity to consider the biggest spending areas in all Departments. For example, the question of spending on health is one that has been highly contentious and the public perception has been that we are spending too much on health care. The reality is somewhat different, a point that needs to be raised through the committee system. It is not so much how much we spend on health care, compared with other European countries — as our costs are well controlled — but how that money is spent and how fairly it is distributed. Clearly, our present system, particularly in relation to hospital care, is based largely on peoples' ability to pay for a service rather than on their needs. To tilt that balance a major political change is required. While I welcome the establishment of the committees I do not think that a committee that examines the Estimates five or six months after they have begun to be spent is a relevant way to put right something that is basically inequitous. As an Opposition Deputy I would like to play my part to ensure that we can right the balance. There are many limitations to the committee system. Another opportunity missed relates to the responsiveness of committees.

One of the difficulties in the Dáil is the slowness and the ponderous procedure that prevents us debating and raising issues on a daily basis. The committee system offers us an opportunity to be much more responsive and in this regard I cite the example of yesterday's Supreme Court decision. I suggest that we have a special meeting of the Select Committee on Social Affairs to deal with this issue. Questions of equality constitutionality are involved. The committee that deals with the area of equality should meet to discuss this issue. The Taoiseach stated, in his slow ambling way, that somehow the matter can wait until the autumn, and that the Minister for Health will bring forward legislation to deal with this issue. It is extraordinary that this matter is being put on the long finger instead of being tackled as a matter of urgency. This constitutional question needs to be resolved. The rights of women are being denied as a result of yesterday's decision. The Taoiseach's response was a miserable one.

Article 40.3.3º of the Constitution guarantees that there should be no limit to freedom to obtain and make available, subject to conditions laid down by law, information on services lawfully available in another EC member state. We are always described as good Europeans. The question women want answered now is whether we are equal Europeans. Nine months ago the Irish people supported the proposed amendment to the Constitution. They voted in favour of the right to information and of the right to travel. The Government chose not to introduce legislation but that in no way changes the fundamental principle enshrined in our Constitution. The Dublin Well Woman Centre and Open Door were simply exercising their constitutional rights in applying to have an injunction lifted which clearly was in contravention of the wishes of the Irish people; the same freedom of information that is available in other EC member states and which was guaranteed by the Irish people in the last referendum. Instead of protecting that right and ensuring that it was extended to particular groups we were presented with the disgraceful spectacle of the Attorney General putting forward a case not for but against the wishes of the people of Ireland.

This is the same Attorney General who organised the legal vendetta against the 14 year-old girl who wished to travel to seek an abortion, the case that led to a referendum in which the people were asked to vote on the issue. They voted overwhelmingly in favour of the right to travel. Despite the clear wishes of the majority of people we now have a repeat performance which can only put a question mark over the role of the Attorney General in relation to protecting human rights and, in particular, those of women.

The one member of the Supreme Court, Mrs. Justice Denham, who spoke out on behalf of women yesterday said:

What is at issue here is whether an extant order of the Supreme Court which is contrary to the Constitution should stand. I am satisfied that it should not. To the pregnant women who required information pursuant to the amendments from Open Door, time did not stand still. Their situation could not be adjourned. The existence of the injunction resulted in a denial of the centre's constitutional right to make the information available and circumvented the right of a woman to obtain such information from the centre.

There can be no clearer message to the Members of the Oireachtas than that. We have a responsibility and I ask the Chairman of the Select Committee on Social Affairs to convene a special meeting to meet that responsibility and defend the rights of woman. The Minister for Health has been given responsibility to bring in legislation in the autumn. That is not the answer and it does not face up to the reality that women are being told to wait in line and cannot exercise the right they won through the will of the people last year. If Dáil reform is to mean anything, if we are serious about our business and if we are not to have committees which are simply talking shops a special meeting of the Select Committee on Social Affairs should be convened to tackle this issue in a way that is responsing to an essential injustice.

One of the great disappointments felt by the general public, and in particular those depending on social welfare, was the refusal by the Government to withdraw the McCreevy cuts — the so-called dirty dozen. I should like to cite the example of the exceptional needs payments which have been the subject of much contention since the original circular was sent to community welfare officers. The situation is still the same as it was when that circular was issued. We have had a face saving exercise by the Minister which has been meaningless and is fraudulent in the manner in which it is presented to the people.

One of the great strengths of the social welfare system has been the ability of community welfare officers to be flexible and to respond when a family is in stress and when there is a financial strain on a family. The community welfare officers who were well versed in local needs and aware of what should be done are now lost because the Minister for Social Welfare is preventing them doing the job they were supposed to do and did effectively in the past. In Dublin this has led to a dispute which is most unfortunate. The responsibility lies with the Minister for Social Welfare. He is being bull-headed about this. The effect has been that families who, in the past, could look to the State for small amounts of money can no longer do so.

I should like to make one point regarding education. It is such an obvious point that I almost feel embarrassed raising it. The Minister for Education, Deputy Bhreathnach, whom I wish well, has launched an initiative to hold a convention in the autumn on the the Green Paper on Education to which she will invite all the disparate groups and relevant bodies in education. This exericise is being presented as one of openness and transparency and is a good idea. It is extraordinary that not one Member of the Oireachtas has been invited to the convention.

Surely if we are to have openness and transparency in Government it must be done on the fundamental democratic principle that we are here not in our own right but representing thousands of people who entrusted us with the job of shaping public policy in education and so on. It is an extraordinary oversight that the Minister for Education has excluded the select committee dealing with education from this convention.

Mr. Leonard

I congratulate the chairman, Deputy Pattison, and the convenor, Deputy Michael Bell, for getting the committee up and running so quickly. Unlike the Order of Business in this House, there is no playacting by the members on this committee — it conducts its business in a workman like fashion. The Minister has been criticised for not being present in the House to listen to the debate. It should be said that the Minister would not even have an opportunity of replying to the debate — the chairman gives his report to the House, it is debated and he may wind up the debate.

These committees were set up to afford backbenchers an opportunity to contribute to Committee Stage debates. The system will be of more benefit to Fianna Fáil and Labour backbenchers than to Opposition backbenchers who got an opportunity to contribute to almost every debate. Lately when I visited the Whip's office to indicate my wish to contribute to a debate I was told that the list was full and that half the speakers might not even get in. I then had to try to get three or five minutes from another speaker. I think the practice whereby people who were not members of the committee could not contribute to a debate is being changed to allow members of other committees to contribute to debates. I believe members of the Select Committee on Social Affairs would welcome the opportunity to contribute to debates on agriculture, environment and defence matters.

Members of the British-Irish Inter-parliamentary Body will know that we have an opportunity to consult with various groups, statutory bodies, individuals etc. in drawing up reports. I agree with many of the points made by Deputy Bradford in that regard; we need to get all the information possible.

The Select Committee on Social Affairs has a very wide remit — it deals with the big spending Government Departments, Social Welfare and Education. At present this committee is dealing with the Committee Stage of the Matrimonial Home Bill, 1993. The committee should have an opportunity to carry out an in-depth examination of the systems operated in those Departments. For example, it should be able to call in departmental officials to discuss their various areas of responsibility. I have long held the view that the policies in many of those areas leave much to be desired. Some health boards have set up committee systems and I have recommended to my council that it should set up a committee system. I regard this as a more constructive way of dealing with political matters.

Mr. Allen

I wish to pay tribute to the chairman and members of the committee. This committee marks a new phase in the development of this Parliament. It is a pity that the responsible Ministers are not present in the House to listen to the debate, a debate which might have taken place in the committees for all the impact it will have. The relevant Ministers are not here——

Miss Quill

It could have taken place in a telephone kiosk.

Mr. Allen

Deputy Leonard said that Minister would not have an opportunity to contribute to the debate. It is important for Minister to listen more and to talk less. If the relevant Ministers had attended this debate they could possibly have learned a few things about their briefs. Like Deputy Quill, I will have travelled a round trip of 330 miles for this debate today. If we can travel that distance, surely Ministers could have travelled the few hundreds yards from Government Buildings to be here?

Mr. D. Wallace

They are discussing very important business.

Mr. Allen

The Deputy will have an opportunity to contribute later. If the relevant Ministers had attended this debate it would have given the committees the recognition they deserve for the work they are doing.

Despite all the hype and propaganda, the Minister for Social Welfare is still prepetuating a dependency culture in our society. This can be seen in a number of areas. For example, the summer work scheme for students can now be seen to be the charade we all thought it would be. It is a total failure in that students are being asked to travel vast distances to take up jobs for which they are paid only £40 per week. I know some students who are thinking of not resuming their courses in September.

This committee should look more at policy. I accept that the committee has been in existence for a short time only and that much of its time has been taken up discussing the Estimates for the Public Service. Nevertheless I believe that the committee could stop the Minister perpetuating a dependency culture. I will be putting forward proposals to the committee on how we can deal with our unemployment problem. We are imposing a system of compulsory unemployment on people at a time when we should be attempting to structure a system of optional work for the unemployed. Many of the work schemes introduced by the Department of Social Welfare are meaningless. Some of the people who have participated in these schemes have been humiliated and have not been given any long term prospects of work. Optional work schemes, which can be funded, would give people real work for real payments. I would emphasise the words "optional" and "real" in this instance. It would also give them the choice of doing further work during the remainder of the week if they could obtain it. Such work schemes could be self-financing and could have the beneficial effect of reducing the number of people in the black economy. I will be putting forward detailed proposals in this respect to the committee in the months ahead. These schemes would be attractive to the unemployed — they would give them hope — and would also be acceptable to the trade union movement.

I hope also to address, both in this House and at the committee, the anti-family element of the social welfare code. A recent incident highlighted by The Cork Examiner shows how the social welfare code works against the family unit. The very restrictive assessment procedures for social welfare assistance are driving young people out of their family homes and some of those have to apply for supplementary welfare allowance from the local health board to subsidise the rent for their new accommodation. I am appalled that the Minister was unable in this House to quantify the level of expenditure on recent subsidies. I was unable to get that information also from my health board at a meeting yesterday. The restrictive assessment procedures are adding to the number of people on local authority housing lists. The Cork Examiner highlighted the farcical case of a 19 year old girl who spent last year studying child care in Dublin and who signed on the FÁS register. She applied for a job, was judged to be an excellent applicant by the Irish Wheelchair Association and was accepted for the position. However, because she had been refused unemployment assistance on the grounds that she lived at home with her parents she was not eligible for a FÁS work scheme. How ludicrous some schemes can be. That was outrageous. The Minister is very aware of propaganda and every Monday we hear about improvements in the social welfare code but he did not think it worth his while to come the 300 yards to this House to listen to our views. We must come to grips with the elements of the social welfare code that are anti-family. I will develop this in detail in the weeks and months ahead. Families are having to split up because of the restrictive assessment procedures of the Department of Social Welfare. I hope we can address the question of integrating the social welfare and taxation systems as this should be done sooner rather than later. I hope also that some of the key elements of the report of the commission on social welfare will be implemented.

As I am sharing my time with Deputy Flanagan I will conclude shortly. I must comment on the way the Government has reneged on its commitment to the mentally handicapped and the way the mentally handicapped, the most marginalised in our society, were exploited in the lead up to the general election. It was promised that £25 million would be provided for services for the mentally handicapped but only a paltry £8.5 million has been delivered. This is a betrayal of the most marginalised section of our community.

Mr. Flanagan

Today's sitting of the Dáil must rank as one of the greatest farces in Dáil history. Before the conclusion of this debate will somebody please point out the purpose of Members speaking here today in three, four and five minute sound bites to an almost empty Chamber, which is totally devoid of ministerial presence since this morning when the Taoiseach refused to answer questions on the Order of Business? Is this merely an attempt by Government to massage public opinion by ensuring that the elected parliamentarians are working during the month of July? I hope this exercise will never be repeated.

I believe a proper and effective committee of the House could have dealt with all the very serious allegations examined by the infamous Tribunal of Inquiry into the Beef Industry in the past almost two years. In that way the outrageous legal cost of that exercise would not have arisen and the taxpayer would have been saved millions of pounds. We should never repeat that kind of exercise. The whole issue could have been dealt with at committee with appropriate powers and terms of reference. As previous speakers have stated, the committee system needs to be extended and strengthened to allow for participation by witnesses and outside intersts along the lines of that obtaining in the United States.

The line by line examination of the departmental Estimates worked very well. However, I think the next step is to allow for Secretaries of Departments and other high ranking officials to contribute actively and openly in the course of committee deliberations. I welcome the fact that up to 14 or 15 high ranking civil servants attended our committee meetings but it seems to me that their function was no more than to hand notes to the Minister and ensure their lips were sealed on all occasions. The legislation that is necessary to strengthen the committees must be forthcoming as a matter of urgency. We must bring this House in line with fora whose practices and procedures are in tune with what society requires in the late 20th century.

The chairman asked for submissions as to what we might discuss, that amazed me because the Minister for Health had refused a request from me to refer the Kilkenny incest case report to the committee. This is a matter that deserves a full day's hearing and we will have such a hearing on any day the Minister wishes to nominate. We could have a full day's debate, too, on the outrageous decision of the Supreme Court yesterday and the effect it will have on women.

I am sorry that I am muzzled by this crazy procedure of the House that invites Members to attend a one-day session in July but allows us at most three or four minutes in which to contribute. I understand that we will not meet again in this Chamber until sometime in October — that is Dáil reform.

Mr. Bell

As a convenor I take this opportunity to thank the members of the committee and, in particular, the chairman, who worked very closely with me over the past few weeks. We had no difficulty at all in securing the co-operation of our opposite numbers particularly Deputies Flaherty and Bradford. I thank them personally for their co-operation. As anticipated we encountered some problems in the early stages but as a result of the degree of co-operation we were able to overcome those quickly.

It is still early days. The committee system is positive and I have no doubt, like my other colleagues on both sides, that it will be responsible for major legislative changes in the coming years. Of course, certain changes will have to be made as we go along because we learn from experience. For example, there was criticism of the length of time apportioned to certain Bills and members accept that some Estimates require more detailed examination than others, depending on the extent of the allocation involved. However, we now have experience under our belt and I am sure we will be able to deal with that problem when the situation arises again.

The attendance at committee meetings was exceptionally high. At some meetings as many as 27 out of the 30 members attended. This was particularly high when one considers that the meeting was running parallel to other meetings, party meetings, other committee meetings and other business that members have to attend to. The lowest number in attendance was 25 out of 30 and in my opinion that is exceptional.

Our main deliberation was on the Estimates but that was the way the business was ordered initially. It must be remembered that we dealt with almost 50 per cent of the total national budget in the course of our examination of the Estimates. That is no mean achievement. It must be put on record that a substantially greater time then ever before was allocated to the discussion on the Estimates for Social Welfare, Health, Education, and Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht — indeed we spent four times the debating time that previously took place. We cleared every section and every aspect of the Estimates with one exception, which was the longest Estimate we had to deal with. The contributions by members were exceptionally good. Each party, both Government and Opposition, provided a party spokesperson who participated actively and fully in every session.

The Matrimonial Home Bill, 1993, to which Deputy O'Donnell referred — quite frankly I was surprised at her comments because I believe they should be addressed to her own Party Leader who was in Government with his party for six years——

Mr. Flanagan

Hogwash.

Mr. Bell

——and had ample opportunity to bring in legislation to deal with women's affairs.

Mr. Flanagan

Is the Deputy going to give out the marks?

Mr. Bell

We will ensure that we deal with the maximum amount of business and I hope that with the co-operation of all the members we will succeed in achieving that.