Skip to main content
Normal View

Select Committee on Legislation and Security debate -
Wednesday, 15 Jun 1994

Vote 33: Equality and Law Reform (Revised Estimate).

I welcome the Minister for Equality and Law Reform, Deputy Taylor, the Secretary of the Department, Mr. Bernard McDonagh and the other officials. The business before the committee is the revised Estimate for the Department of Equality and Law Reform, Vote 33. The Department is seeking the sum of £10,647,000 for 1994.

The meeting will commence with opening statements and each spokesperson will have 15 minutes. The Minister will begin, followed in turn by spokespersons for Fine Gael, the Progressive Democrats and the Technical Group. This will take approximately one hour. I propose that the committee then consider the various subheads taking the A subheads together and then taking the remaining subheads in turn. With the co-operation of all members it should be possible to bring the deliberations to a close by 1.30 p.m. if not earlier. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Last year, for the first time I moved the Estimates for my Department. At that stage the Department of Equality and Law Reform was but a few months old and we had only begun to give consideration to the best way of implementing those elements in the Programme for a Partnership Government which related to the responsibilities of this new Department.

Understandably, last year's Estimates contained expenditure under a number of subheads which covered the costs entailed in setting up the Department. These included the purchase of various fixtures and fittings, such as fax machines, word processors, computer equipment, etc. My Department has moved a long way in a relatively short time. The process of legislative reform has already begun and considerable progress has been made in the preparation of legislation to be placed before the Oireachtas.

The main thrust of my Department's policies has been to legislate to support the family and measures which will assist the family in dealing with the various problems which it faces in a modern age. Wherever possible we are putting in place measures which will assist and support families in difficulty while at the same time recognising the reality of family problems, particularly the ever increasing level of marital breakdown. Specifically, my Department will provide funding on an unprecedented level to the Legal Aid Board which deals with a significant number of family law cases, the Family Mediation Service which assists a married couple whose marriage has broken down and helps them reach a voluntary agreement about arrangements for children, property and the family home without the need for court intervention, and marriage counselling services which do work of immense value, especially in helping couples encountering difficulties in their marriages.

Subhead C.1, under which £4,972,000 is being provided in 1994 as grant-in-aid to the Legal Aid Board, represents an increase of 56 per cent over the £3,206,000 expended by my Department in 1993 for this purpose. The civil legal aid and advice scheme was established in 1979 so that persons of limited means could avail of legal services. However, because of pressure on public finances generally, the pace at which services under the scheme were developed and expanded was slower than originally envisaged. In early 1993, I succeeded in getting from the Government a special increase of £100,000 for that year for the Legal Aid Board which facilitated the introduction of the private solicitor project. This project, which is confined to District Court reliefs in barring, custody and maintenance cases, has been especially helpful in reducing waiting lists generally.

The £4.974 million I secured this year as a grant-in-aid to the Legal Aid Board is a dramatic increase on the 1993 allocation of £3.2 million and is sufficient to enable the board to proceed with its programme of development. An increase of this magnitude has never been matched by any Government since the legal aid scheme was initiated. The additional money will allow for the expansion of the board's network of law centres by the opening in 1994 of ten full or part-time centres, as provided for in the development programme. This will ensure that by the end of this year, all counties will have either a full-time or part-time centre. Recently I attended the official opening — in Nenagh — of the first of these new centres to come on stream. In the coming months, two other new full-time centres will become operational in Dublin, one in the city and the other in Blanchardstown. In addition to the new centre at Nenagh, new centres will be opening in Ennis, Kilkenny, Longford, Monaghan, Portlaoise, Wexford and Wicklow.

The grant-in-aid to the Legal Aid Board this year represents an increase of 56 per cent over the previous year. When the planned additional staff are recruited, the board will have a total of 75 solicitors and 129 support staff employed. These increases mean that since coming into office, this Governemnt will have mroe than doubled the number of staff employed by the board and doubled the capacity of the board to act on behalf of the clients who use the service.

Over the years, much interest has been expressed in having a statutory scheme of civil legal aid and advice introduced. In this respect, considerable progress has been made on the commitment made in the Programme for a Partnership Government to put it on a statutory basis. Legislation on the matter is at an advanced stage of drafting. This year, I am increasing the grant aid to the free legal advice centres, more commonly known as FLAC, to £45,000.

Some £30,000 is being provided under subhead D, the conciliation service, in 1994, which is more than double the amount allocated to the service in 1993. The conciliation service is better known to most as the family mediation service. It was set up in Dublin on an experimental basis under the auspices of the Department of Justice. It now operates under the auspices of my Department from which it is wholly funded. The purpose of the service is to assist a husband and wife whose marriage has broken down to reach a voluntary agreement about arrangements for children, property, the family home, maintenance and succession rights, without the need for court intervention. While the State funded family mediation service operates from a premises in Dublin, its services are not confined to those resident there. The increased allocation available to the service in 1994, to which I have already referred, will facilitate the expansion and development of the service and enable it to be established on a permanent basis. I commend the work of the mediation service and intend to give it all the support I can.

Grants for marriage counselling services represent a new subhead in my Department's Vote. In previous years, grants to the voluntary organisations providing marriage and counselling services were administered by the Department of Health through the health boards. There has been little increase over the years in the amounts provided to the various organisations. Neither has there been particular centralisation of decision making in the process with several Departments involved at any one time.

Work of immense value is done by a number of voluntary organisations in the area of marriage counselling for couples encountering difficulties with their marriages. I secured funding of £750,000 for those organisations in 1994; an increase of 150 per cent over last year. This money will be used to assist those organisations in their work, to encourage them to develop and expand marriage counselling and related services and ensure a nationwide coverage. It will be dispersed in a fair and equitable manner in the interests of the community which the counselling organisations are serving.

My Department is responsible for the central authority for the purposes of The Hague and Council of Europe Conventions on child abduction, a function which was taken over from the Department of Justice in May 1993. The estimates for the operation of the central authority in my Department is £10,000, similar to the amount allocated to the Department of Justice prior to the transfer of the function to my Department. The money is used, for example, as a contingency fund to assist in the travel costs of children being returned to Ireland.

In 1993, the central authority received 73 new applications involving 125 children, an increase of 74 per cent on the previous year. In addition, a further nine cases were carried forward from the previous year, leaving a total of 82 cases. These cases can be divided equally between abductions into the State from other countries — 41 — and abductions from the State to other countries. In the case of children removed to the State, the High Court ordered the return of children in 13 cases; the court refused to return a child in one case; the parties reached agreement in six cases; six applications were withdrawn and four applications were outside the scope of the relevant convention. There were 11 cases pending at the end of the year.

The Family Law Bill, 1994, currently being considered by the Oireachtas, develops and strengthens the law on the financial and other consequnces of marital breakdown and deals with a wide range of other matters, including age and notice of marriage. New powers are being given to the courts to order financial support for a person whose marriage is annulled and for a person whose foreign decrees to divorce, nullity or separation are entitled to recognition in the State. The Bill addresses the problem of what should happen to occupational pensions in the context of marital breakdown and it allows the court to order attachment of earnings at the time of making orders for maintenance of spouses and children. At present, separate proceedings are required for an attachment of earnings order and the spouse must prove default of the other spouse in complying with a maintenace order. That procedure is cumbersome and involves expense. Moreover, surveys show that attachment of earnings doubles the chances of compliance with a maintenance order.

The Maintenance Bill, 1994, will enable the State to ratify two international conventions aimed at making it easier for persons living in the territory of one of the parties to those conventions to recover maintenance from a person living in the territory of another party. At the heart of the proposed system will be a central authority which will act on behalf of the maintenance creditor and liaise with a similar body in the other state. The later state will, in turn, arrange to have the maintenance order recognised and enforced in its jurisdiction. A similar arrangement, which has been in operation between Ireland and the United Kingdom since 1974, operates through the office of the Master of the High Court and has proven to be successful.

The Bill will also allow agreement to be made with states who are not party to the UN Convention, for example, the United States and Canada. These arrangements will represent a considerable improvement on the current situation in so far as these non-EU states are concerned.

A Bill on barring and protection orders will implement the Government's commitment to extend barring orders legislation and to enhance the rights of parties on non-marital unions. The legislation will take into account representations made by interested groups and recommendations contained in reports of the Law Reform Commission, the Second Commission on the Status of Women and the Kilkenny incest investigation. New powers of arrest will be given to the Garda and health boards will be authorised to act on behalf of persons, subject to certain conditions to be specified in the legislation.

There was an expectation on all sides of the House this time last year that, after many years, legislation to provide for joint ownership of the family home and household contents would soon become a reality. As we know, that expectation was not realised when the Supreme Court decided the Matrimonial Home Bill, 1993, was repugnant to the Constitution. I am determined, in so far as the parameters of that judgment will allow, to promote joint ownership of the family home to the greatest practicable extent. To that end, my Department is currently examining proposals for legislation to provide simplified arrangements for voluntary conveyances of family homes to joint ownership. The aim of such provisions is to enable couples to give full and effective recognition to the contribution made by the spouse working in the home.

In line with commitments in the Programme for a Partnership Government, my Department is giving attention to a multiplicity of legislative proposals — 12 Bills in all — at various stages. Among these are proposals to amend the law on occupiers' liability, taking into account the Law Reform Commission's recent report. These proposals are being finalised with a view to a Bill being published this year. Proposals for a Bill on enduring powers of attorney are also in course of preparation.

The Government's decision on the timing of the referendum on divorce will take into account, among other matters, progress in the Government's programme of family law measures. It is the Government's intention to proceed with the implementation of its programme as quickly as possible and to ensure that by the time of the referendum, the outstanding issue to be put to the people will be whether or not those whose marriages have ended in all but name should have the right to re-marry. In this respect, the Government's decision on the timing of the referendum will, if necessary, take into account the outcome of the decision of the court on the case that is pending concerning the provisions in the Judicial Separation and Family Law Reform Act, 1989.

The committee will be aware that under subhead L, a sum of £500,000 is provided for in respect of the information campaign in the run up to the divorce referendum. While it is by no means certain, in the light of the constitutional challenge to the Judicial Separatation and Family Law Reform Act, 1989, that this money will be required in 1994, it would be remiss of the Government not to provide for an information campaign in view of all the legislative changes since 1986. All the research in this area appears to indicate a dearth of knowledge on the part of the public as to the nature of the changes in the law relating to marital breakdown since the last referendum.

Information of a factual nature will be provided to the public on the proposals for an amendment to the Constitution and on the details of any divorce legislation which would follow a "Yes" vote. My Department will have responsibility for the information campaign in consultation with the Government Information Services.

I am currently preparing legislation to implement the EU Pregnant Workers Directive, which is due for transposition into Irish law by October 1994. The main provisions regarding maternity leave have been available since 1981 under the Maternity (Protection of Employees) Act. I also published earlier this year the report of the Working Group on Child-care Facilities for Working Parents. This report provides a valuable overview of the existing position regarding child care facilities and makes important recommendations directed at employers and workers as well as Government. I am consulting all Ministers in this regard.

I am providing £90,000 in 1994 for the operations of the task force on the travelling community which I established in July 1993 and which is chaired by Deputy McManus. In addition, a further £75,000 is provided for 1994 in respect of the Commission on the Status of People with Disabilities. The work of the commission is ongoing and I understand it will shortly publish a consultative document outlining the nature and focus of its work to date. I have also provided £114,000 to fund the proposed Council for the Status of People with Disabilities. I envisage that the role of the council will be to oversee implementation of action to improve the position of people with disabilities.

As promised in the Programme for a Partnership Government, I will introduce equal status legislation dealing with discrimination in non-employment areas and covering a wide range of grounds, including gender, marital or parental status, sexual orientation, religion, age, disability, race, colour, nationality and national or ethnic origin, including membership of the travelling community. A discussion paper on the subject was circulated to almost 80 non-Government bodies last year and a substantial number of responses was received. Work on the details of the legislation is progressing as speedily as possible and I hope it will be published this year.

Proposals are well advanced for new employment equality legislation which will prohibit discrimination, not only on the grounds of sex or marital status, but on wider range of grounds, including parental status, sexual orientation, religion, age, disability, race, colour, nationality or national or ethnic origins, including membership of the travelling community. Priority is being given to preparation of this legislation with a view to its enactment at the earliest possible date.

I apologise for arriving a few minutes late for the start of the meeting. My late arrival again underlines the necessity to consider the times for meetings of this and other committees. I was delayed because the Order of Business, which is very important, was ongoing in the House. It is unfortunate that two important events are at the same time.

I congratulate the Minister on his Estimates. Under the heading of "Consultancy Services and Advertising and Publicity", there has been an increase from the previous year. This increase amounts to 95 per cent in the case of consultancey services and 267 per cent in the case of advertising and publicity. I question these two items, not specifically because of my concern regarding the Minister's Department, but because of my concern, and the concern of large numbers of Members of the Oireachtas, regarding the increase under these headings in respect of all Departments.

This has been the greatest area of growth generated by the Government since it took office. Many Members are seriously concerned regarding the emphasis being placed on consultants and spin doctors. In view of this, will the Minister provide a breakdown of this expenditure and an explanation for the substantial increase of 95 per cent and 267 per cent under these headings? I also ask the Minister to reply to these questions in the knowledge of the concern I have expressed on these matters regarding all Departments.

I welcome the increase in the amount allocated to the Family Mediation Service. The Minister has advised that the purpose of the service is to assist a husband and wife whose marriage has broken down to reach a voluntary agreement regarding arrangements for children, property, the family home, maintenance and succession rights, without the need for court intervention. I support this service, and in the context of the introduction of legislation on divorce it is valuable and essential.

The Minister stated: "While the State-funded Family Mediation Service operates from a premises in Dublin its services are not confined to those resident in Dublin". However, a nationwide family mediation service should be available in every population centre in the State. While the Minister advises, and the Estimates confirm that there has been an increase of 144 per cent in funding, from £123,000 to £300,000, such an increase is not good enough.

This matter is of considerable importance. Those concerned about the breakup of families recognise that the Family Mediation Service is essential if anything is to be done about this problem. While the Minister commends the work of the service and advises that he intends to give it all the support he can, the proposed increase to £300,000 is a miserable figure in view of the enormity of this problem and the concern it is causing among so many people. While the Minister advises the committee of his concern he should demonstrate greater urgency in this respect.

It is not good enough to have only one office for the service, situated in Dublin. The Minister advises that the service is not confined to those resident in Dublin, but how will people resident in Donegal, Cork, Galway or in other areas distant from Dublin avail of the service? Services such as this should be available in the local population centre, and cannot be described as a family mediation service of any great extent unless this is provided. I urge the Minister to ensure that more money will be made available under this heading.

The Minister did not refer to a recent judgment of the European Court of Human Rights regarding the rights of unmarried fathers and adoptive fathers. He promised the House that there will be legislation to cover this matter but does not refer to it in his Estimates. Will he provide the committee with additional information as to when legislation to cover this will be introduced? It is a matter of particular concern, not only to unmarried fathers but also to adoptive parents. There is considerable concern about the implications of this ruling which I hope the Minister will be able to respond to.

The Minister refers to the sum of £500,000 which the Government proposes to make available in relation to the divorce referendum. Under subhead L this sum is provided for in respect of the information campaign in the run-up to the divorce referendum. The Minister says he believes it would be remiss of the Government not to provide for an information campaign in view of the considerable legislative changes since 1986. I agree that as much information as possible should be made available. That was part of the problem with the last referendum campaign on divorce. Those entitled to vote have the right to all the necessary information to enable them to make up their minds, but there is a question as to when information ends and propaganda begins. The Minister will be aware that considerable concern has been expressed about these matters. For example, I refer to The Sunday Independent,a newspaper to which I do not pay much attention for its views on Northern Ireland, a matter close to my heart. However, sometimes it makes sense. I refer to an editorial on the matter we are discussing, published on 17 April 1994, which expressed the view that direct Government intervention in a referendum campaign is simply turning politics into propaganda, where minds can be influenced and votes decided by the power of Government persuasion through a partisan information campaign, paid for by the taxpayer, though without his consent.

That view is widely shared. I refer to an editorial in another of our newspapers, The Irish Times, where the same issue and the constitutionality of spending this amount of money is raised. An editorial in The Irish Times of 22 April 1994 asks:

Is it constitutional, however, to spend public money for this purpose? The question has never been raised in the courts, but a strong case could be made in principle against the practice, on the grounds not only of equity in regard to other points of view but on grounds of the wider risks involved in giving governments open access to the public purse to push their own political objectives.

In the last three referendums (it does say "referendums". It is surprising that even in editorials in The Irish Timesthe proper plural is not used, but I suppose that is a sign of the times)— on the Single European Act in 1987, the Maastricht campaign in 1992, and last year’s referendum on abortion issues - public funds were used to solicit a “Yes” vote. . . Before 1987, no Government thought of financing its referendum arguments from the taxpayer’s pocket; now it is probably inevitable.

Well is it "probably inevitable"? Is this a practice we wish to continue? It is a recent practice, as pointed out, dating from 1987. While I am in favour of the introduction of divorce-and my party is in favour of it- we are concerned about these aspects of the question: the use of public money in what could easily become a propaganda campaign. Will the Minister reply to these points because they are matters of concern not only to Members of the House but to responsible opinion formers outside. I hope he will be able to help us in that regard.

I wish to raise one other point with reference to the Minister's role in monitoring equality measures in other Government Departments. I have attempted to raise this matter with him in the House on a number of occasions and was dissatisfied with the answers I received. There is a problem in relation to the monitoring by his Department of equality measures and their implementtion in other Government Departments. While attempting to put down questions to the Minister I find that efforts are made to steer the questions to other Government Departments, to the Department of Finance in particular. It is not a new development that Government Departments and Ministers should seek to cling to all the power and authority they have and reluctant to see it go to other Ministers and Departments. However, if the Department of Equality and Law Reform is to function properly then it has to function across the wide range of Government responsibilities. It has to make sure that in all Government Departments the criteria of equality are abided by. I ask the Minister to pay some attention to this and tell us if what I suspect is correct, that his efforts in this matter are being repulsed by certain Government Departments. Those are the issues that I wished to raise in the time available to me.

Discussion of the Estimates is perhaps a time for congratulating the Minister. I am not slow to criticise him but I acknowledge that there are substantial increases in allocations in many of the areas delineated for us here. The Department of Equality and Law Reform is very important. The Minister went through the various legislative proposals in train and said he is involved with 12 Bills in all, which is welcomed. However, we need more. While congratulating the Minister on his commitment, we should have a better funded Department in this regard. The Minister has to fight his corner but that does not take from the fact that there are substantial increases in some of the allocations.

As the Minister went through the various Bills, I would like to refer to some of them. We have rehearsed the argument about the joint ownership of the family home and the Minister will be relieved to know I am fed up speaking about it. I acknowledge he recognises the necessity for legislation and I hope he can come up with satisfactory proposals. I regret that any proposals which my party has put forward so far have not found favour with him. I made additional suggestions in relation to a Bill we are dealing with at present which did not find favour either. The Minister knows that if suitable legislation is put before us I will support it.

Deputy Currie referred to the divorce referendum and the allocation for an information campaign on the parameters of the divorce legislation. He made the point that it should involve information, not propaganda. It is important that people are informed but there has been some disquiet that only one side of the argument will be propagated, which would be unfortunate. The Minister said he will have responsibility for the information campaign in consultation with the Government Information Services. In disbursing funds for this campaign he should take on board that there are many reasonable people with a point of view which needs expression so that there can be a well-informed debate. There should be some allocation to people to enable them to make a case. We should not have an emotional, reactive debate which is so unseemly, particularly in relation to divorce. It is unnecessary and would be most unfortunate because the real issues become lost when an argument becomes emotional rather than reasonable.

It is unfortunate that the Minister stated we do not know when the referendum will take place. I have been very critical of what happened in relation to family law legislation. It is regrettable that we had a specific timetable which cannot now be followed. We should embark on an information campaign, notwithstanding the fact that we do not know when the referendum will take place. I see a big difference between information being made available so that people can examine all sides of a question and leadership given by the Government on its stance on the divorce campaign. It is disappointing that we do not have more a serious advocating of a "yes" vote in a proposed referendum. The Minister has given his commitment but we have to show leadership on this issue and it is up to the Government to be much more proactive on it. I separate this from the information the Government will make available to people to enable it to examine all the issues. It is correct to be an advocate of a certain cause on a political level.

I welcome the increase in funding for the family mediation service. It is important that there is extra funding for this service, particularly because of the fears expressed about divorce and a divorce culture. Deputy Currie made this point in a slightly different way. I do not know whether this increase is enough. The point about the family mediation service being a Dublin one is well made. The Minister referred to this and said that because it is based in Dublin does not mean it is not a countrywide service. However, it is difficult for people in far flung counties to avail of this service. I ask the Minister to look at this in the way he has looked at the free legal aid service. Family mediation and marriage counselling services should be adequately funded, not just because of the divorce referendum but because they are important in their own right.

Recently, I put down a motion on the Adjournment about grants to a particular marriage counselling service. The £750,000 provided for marriage counselling organisations is welcome and is a substantial increase on last year's figure. this funding came from another Vote last year. The day after the motion on the Adjournment to which I referred, the marriage counselling service to which I alluded received a substantial document seeking a great deal of information. I hope the people involved in the service have crossed all the right "t"s and dotted all the right "i" and will get the funding which they undoubtedly need for their excellent service.

If necessary, we should look again, perhaps in the run-up to the divorce referendum, at marriage counselling and mediation services. I do not know how we can evaluate their success perhaps it could be based on the number of people who stay together. Services should be funded properly, especially when they are provided by voluntary agencies which depend on cake sales and so on for their finances. People's future should not depend on such activities.

We had a substantial debate on the Legal Aid Board. The Minister made a commitment which he endeavoured to honour and has had some success in increasing funding over the year. A Supplementary Estimate was introduced in November when there was great concern about the number on the waiting lists. This concern was also expressed at the Estimates meeting last year and continued throughout the year. Waiting lists have been substantially reduced and we must press for this to continue so that people are not left in unhappy and untenable situations for months on end. This is still the case in some areas. I am not saying this to be critical of the Minister because I congratulate him on his efforts in this regard, but we need to continue to keep up the pressure. The Minister said a service should be available in every county and I would like that to be the case. Services are provided unevenly throughout the country and this should be tackled. I accept that the Minister has done a great deal of work to ensure that this will happen.

I was somewhat disappointed at what the Minister had to say about the childcare report. The time for consultation has passed, as has the time for implementation. We should not still be discussing these issues and the Minister must decide on this with other Departments. I regret the situation of having very worthy reports sitting on shelves for months waiting for discussion by the Government. We should be seeing action on something as urgent and as necessary as this. I will be putting down questions in relation to it so I am sure that I will find out quite soon.

I would also like, while I am being complimentary, to focus on the grant for the Commission on the Status of People with Disabilities, which I am pleased to see. I had some words with the Minister in the Dáil in relation to the representation on such a commission and I was very pleased with his response. I hope he will be using up that grant this year. It is urgently required as is legislation in the whole area, to which he has given a commitment.

In relation to the UN conference on women, was the Minister thinking of bringing us all there? I do not quibble with such amounts being put in because it is very important for us to link into what is happening and be abreast of trends. We are leading the way in some areas and I hope that we will learn from that conference.

In relation to consultancy services, there may be a worrying trend in Government Departments, which are already very well served with programme managers and so on, using the services of consultants on behalf of individuals. I would have a problem with that. However, I do not have a difficulty with amounts being given to consultancy services which are appropriate. To that end, it is important not just to have a subhead on this and a very limited explanation, which, indeed, is not really an explanation at all. In the interests of transparency and accountability, it should be specific as to where those moneys are going. I would like the Minister to give us more details about that.

Overall, there are many fine aspirations in the Minister's contribution. In order to fulfil them he probably needs greater funding than he is getting now. We have seen difficulties in the whole area of legislation which unfortunately have resulted in, for example, the rejection of the Matrimonial Home Bill by the Supreme Court. It is important that the Department of Equality and Law Reform —which, I am afraid, some people do not regard as being as important as it genuinely is - is well funded and has staff with the necessary qualifications. As Opposition spokespersons, it behoves us to crib and quibble as much as possible in order that the Minister's hand is strengthened in that regard.

As I began on a positive note, I will end by saying that within the constraints which the Minister has had to work, a great deal of the money here has been spent in the right way and he has focused on the areas which were specified. However, much more needs to be done and I hope that he will be able to do it.

Are there any specific questions on subhead A before the Minister responds?

I want to make a few remarks on one or two of the issues to which the Minister referred.

We are only dealing with subhead A at the moment. Your spokesperson has already spoken.

Is it not possible to make a few general remarks as members of the committee?

I am not in favour of that; I want to deal with the agenda as agreed at the beginning. The Deputy will be able to come in at a later stage.

Can I make a comment on subhead A?

Perhaps subhead A is not the right place to raise this matter, I will wait until later.

Any further comments? Would the Minister like to respond to questions under subhead A?

Was all of this just conducted under subhead A? I am somewhat confused because a number of general issues have been raised to which I would like to add one or two comments and to get the Minister's response.

To clarify the situation, the spokespersons from Fine Gael and the Progressive Democrats have made their comments. We agreed at the beginning of the meeting that we would then deal with the agenda and move down through the subheads and any questions will be taken at that time.

Could I suggest that some flexibility would be important here? There does not seem to be all that much interest from other Members of the House.

I am just trying to be helpful to the members and the Minister. I do not want the business to be going all over the place.

Considering that Deputy Shatter is the only other person here——

Would the Minister like to respond?

The only issue raised on subhead A was the comment of Deputy Currie on the consultancy services and advertising and publicity items, also touched on by Deputy Keogh. So far as the consultancy services are concerned, no element of that refers to PR consultancy. The amount refers primarily to consultancy and professional assistance to the Commission on the Status of People with Disabilities. A number of professional specialised people are needed in a consultancy capacity by the Commission on the Status of People with Disabilities. There is no PR element or anything of that nature in the amount.

With regard to advertising and publicity, the amount is quite small. It refers to normal advertising of notices and so on. Every Department has to publish notices dealing with various aspects of its work. The amount is quite small. I think the figure for last year was incomplete and not on the basis of a full year. We are dealing with small amounts which are for routine material.

When I raised this matter I made it clear that my concern was not just in relation to this Department but was really about what I described as the use by Government Department generally of consultants and spin doctors to put forward particular messages. In the normal course of events I would not have raised the matter in relation to this Department but I raised it out of my concern about the Government's attitude generally. I would not normally make such a request but in view of that concern I ask the Minister to give us, today or at a later stage, the names of the professionals or professional firms which have been involved in this. Have consultancy firms been used?

No, there are no firms involved. There are three individuals: a social worker, a person with a disability and a medical consultant.

I will not press the matter further because I am not in favour of invasion of privacy. I repeat that I asked the question because of my concern about the general position of the Government on these matters.

I understand.

I want to raise one question under the heading of administration on salaries, wages and allowances for the Department of Equality and Law Reform. How effective is the Department in trying to achieve equality? What sort of example is it giving? Are we in fact paying no more than lip service to the status of women in the Civil Service?

I tabled a question for the Minister for Finance in the Dáil to ascertain the number of women at top levels in the Civil Service. Only about 10 per cent of the top positions are held by women. According to the Minister's answer, there are almost 1,000 senior positions including secretary, assistant secretary, principal officers and so on, throughout the various Departments. Only about 100 of those positions are held by women. No woman has been appointed to the most senior position, that of secretary of a Department. This is a further indication of the lack of real commitment to promoting women to top positions.

My final point is particularly appropriate to the Minister's Estimate for salaries, wages and allowances in his own administration. In the Department of Equality and Law Reform, none of the senior officers is a woman. I ask the Minister to comment on this as he is the Minister charged with responsibility for equality. How does he justify his being in charge of a Department where the secretary, the assistant secretary and all the principal officers are men? I suggest that this gives a bad example to the rest of the Civil Service if there is a genuine commitment to equality and the promotion of women to the top levels in our public service.

The question of the employment of women in the upper echelons of the Civil Service is a big issue which has built up over decades. Dealing with it will require attention at varying levels. My Department staff is made up of transfers from other Departments. In so far as I have control over promotions when vacancies arise, I will certainly examine the question of gender. However, the Minister's role in actually making appointments is limited as it is dealt with through Civil Service procedures. Deputy O'Keeffe has raised a complex issue which cannot be remedied by the stroke of a pen. The problem stems from a number of factors which need to be addressed in varying ways. It would take a long time to give all the details on that position.

I recall raising this issue with the Minister previously and I intended raising it in the context of general comments. It is ironic to meet to discuss the Estimate for the Department of Equality and Law Reform and see the Minister with a phalanx of four men from his Department, who are very welcome and entitled to be here, but who, presumbly are the front runners in advocating and advising the Minister on equality issues. There is a well known legal phrase, res ipsa loquitur, which means the thing speaks for itself.

I am afraid that one has to take the Minister's responses less than seriously because this is a new Department. It was formed from two different Departments and it was within the ambit of Government to put together a Department the composition of which would truly reflect an aspiration to equality and set an example for other Departments. It certainly seems to me that, not just in this area but in a number of other areas, this Department has sadly fallen down in the aspiration for equality.

I raised questions some time ago with the Minister for Education about the number of principals in both second and primary level schools. Extraordinarily few principals are women. The overwhelming majority are men, despite the fact that within the teaching profession there are a 50-50 split. There may now be more women than men teaching.

In so far as these appointments are made independently by appointment commissions or otherwise, there is a need for a radical overhaul of the criteria employed and the approach taken. I fail to see how the Minister can have credibility in exercising influence on others in this area when his own Department so starkly resembles the current reality of male domination in the upper echelons of the Civil Service. This reality is starkly presented at today's meeting in a way in which it would not normally be presented in an ordinary Dáil session.

Deputy O'Keeffe's point is a valid one. Whatever about the overall complexities of tackling this problem in every Government Department, the Minister should make it a priority in his own Department. It should have been a priority from the moment the Department was formed.

I was also going to make a point about the figures opposite us. There is more beard equality than gender equality there.

If the Fine Gael Deputies wish to comment on the gender composition on this side of the committee, may I likewise comment on the gender composition of the Fine Gael Deputies opposite?

There are few Labour or Fianna Fáil Deputies noticeably present.

For the record, there are three Fine Gael Deputies present and they are all men.

There were no Labour or Fianna Fáil Deputies for the entire meeting.

There are no Deputies from any party except Fine Gael.

There are three here and they are all men. It is my wish and intention to work towards increasing the level of representation of women at the middle and upper levels of the Civil Service. The Minister for Finance, in consultation with me, is preparing reports which examine how that situation has evolved under many Governments including Governments in which the Fine Gael Party participated. No progress was made in those days; if anything the situation deteriorated.

The Minister was a member of that Government.

Deputy O'Keeffe was a Minister in that Government. It is not an issue easily dealt with because there is a large number of sociological and economic factors involved.

However, this Government is anxious to advance the position of women in Irish society, not only as employees in the Civil Service but in a variety of influential ways. The Government's decision on the composition of State boards is well known and is working well. It will have a downstream effect and will enable women to take their places in influential positions. Improved legislation in the employment equality area will also do much to promote that aim. Changes in attitude are required. It is a broad ranging issue and the Government is tackling it by making decisions, introducing legislation and consulting with Departments. I am confident that progress will be made.

It was important to raise this issue in the context of considering the Estimates for this Department. The excuse offered by the Minister was miserable. It is particularly hard to accept the bad example of the Minister's Department where there is no woman in the top echelons.

This is an important issue of equality and from now on the Minister will be on trial. Deputy Shatter pointed out that the principle of equality has been implemented in the general body of the public service. That is highlighted by the balance in the teaching profession. However, at the top levels where decisions are made there is continuing inequality. The Department of Equality and Law Reform should take a leading role in eliminating such inequality. It must show example by leadership. I will continue to raise this issue with the Minister and I will expect his Department to give an example in the future.

Since its establishment virtually all promotions within my Department have been filled by women.

Not at the top level.

The vacancies have not arisen.

We can do something about that.

We will move on to discuss subheads G to N.

On subhead G and the mediation service Deputies Currie and Keogh made the case that the mediation services provided by the Government should not be confined to Dublin. I listened with interest to the Minister's brief response and to what he said in his speech.

It is nonsensical to expect people to travel from Cork, Kerry and Donegal to Dublin to attend at mediation. It does not happen or it only happens very rarely. It is outrageous that the mediation service provided by the Government is confined to Dublin. The service provided as a pilot scheme from 1985 to 1988 has been kept going on an ad hoc basis. It has not been extended outside Dublin and it should be. I am astonished that the Minister made no reference to the major problem here. It causes me great concern, in the context of how the Government is handling the issue of marriage breakdown and the problems that must be addressed in advance of a divorce referendum.

Whilst mediation is confined to Dublin, the level of marriage breakdown throughout the country is resulting in enormous pressure on the court system to the extent that whether one lives inside or outside Dublin, if judicial separation proceedings are issued and if a couple whose marriage is broken down cannot resolve their problems by agreement, it can take a minimum of one year for the case to be heard. Hundreds of couples throughout the country whose marriages have collapsed, deserted wives, deserted husbands, husbands and wives living at home at war with each other and whose children observe the daily battles are locked into those situations for at least one year after they seek help from the courts. If one partner is dissatisfied with the result achieved at Circuit Court level it can take another year for a High Court appeal to be heard. That is outrageous.

The report from the Law Reform Commission emphasised the need to extend the mediation services and the need for family courts. It said that the current court system is a sad parody of justice. I am astonished that the Minister made no reference to any Government policy to provide family courts or to the Law Reform Commission's recommendations which transcend dealing simply with courts and with other problems in this area. It is an outrage that we are in this position. Circuit Courts, when they are dealing with family problems, might have between 65 and 85 cases in a court list for a session which lasts one or two days. Three months later the same courts will deal with family and marital problems again.

Husbands and wives are living in great difficulty and their children are being affected detrimentally by the delays in the legal system. There is urgent need to appoint additional judges at Circuit Court level to ensure that family problems which must be resolved by the courts are resolved speedily. The Minister appears to be blind to the problem. In the Family Law Bill, which he mentioned today, he extends additional powers to the Circuit Court although that court cope with the current demands being made on it.

The courts are swamped with separation cases. There is not a Circuit Court judge who would tell the Minister anything different. The Dublin Circuit Court last Monday had 84 cases in the list. Some were emergency cases to be heard that day and they had no prospect of being heard. If a wife is seeking emergency maintenance or an emergency barring order and her case is number 74 in a list, it has no chance of being heard. The welfare of children is being placed at risk by the Government's failure to confront this problem which, as I told the Dáil, has been an increasing difficulty for the past 18 months. The Law Reform Commission has confirmed that it is a problem yet the Minister does not even refer to it.

There is a need to extend mediation services outside the Dublin area so that some couples, whose cases are currently before our courts, might be diverted to mediation. There is also a need to appoint additional Circuit Court judges. The primary need is the establishment of a system of family courts on a regional basis as recommended by the Law Reform Commission. It is outrageous and deplorable that the Minister has remained silent on that report and has not indicated that the Government will, in advance of a divorce referendum, provide regional family courts. Is there a commitment from Government to provide such courts? Even without divorce legislation the courts cannot cope. It would be folly to hold a divorce referendum without resolving this problem in advance.

The major urban centres should have a Government mediation service and people should be encouraged to use it. There is a specific provision in the Judicial Separation Act, 1989, which I put through the Dáil, which requires any lawyer, consulted about a marriage problem where people contemplate separating, to advise them about the mediation facility. A State service is available in Dublin; outside the capital there are voluntary agencies but that service is not adequate and should be provided by the Government.

It has been suggested mediation should be compulsory on some occasions. I do not agree and I hope the Government will not follow that path in the context of a divorce referendum. Mediation only works if a husband and wife voluntarily agree to participate in it. They can be encouraged to do so but it will only work if they are voluntary participants. Worldwide research on mediation has established that where it is compulsory it becomes a meaningless formula and does not work. The mediator never knows whether the couple are serious in trying to sort out their problems by agreement or are simply going through the formula before going to the court system.

Our mediation services are grossly inadequate to cope with even those couples who voluntarily wish to use them. It would be a major error to make mediation compulsory in the context of divorce. People should be encouraged to use the service and it should be extended, but mediation will only work where both the husband and wife enter it intending to amicably resolve their problems and where they do not see it as a preliminary step to the inevitable commencement of court proceedings.

I agree with Deputy Shatter's last point. I do not see mediation being made compulsory because that would not be workable. The essence of mediation is that both parties must agree to it if it is to be effective.

I do not disagree with the Deputy's assertion that there are delays in the courts - he is more aware of the current position. That is by no means new because for as long as I can remember there have been delays in the courts. I do not say that as a justification because it is undesirable that there should be.

I do not wish to interrupt the Minister, but I wish to make a point. It is true there have always been delays in the courts but they were neither of the level now being experienced in marriage breakdown cases, nor of the duration. The Minister gave me the same response some months ago in the Dáil. I ask him to look at the problem seriously. He should not regard this as an Opposition Deputy trying to score a point. The Minister is not responsible for the way the courts operate but as a member of Government he is responsible for the number of judges. In my experience there have never been delays of this nature and they are causing major family difficulties, which I cannot emphasise enough.

I do not know what level of delays exist in the various courts but I am aware that there are delays and that they are worse on some circuits than others. The administration of the courts system and the provision of judges are matters for the Department of Justice. I do not doubt that Deputy Shatter has raised and continue to raise that matter at Question Time or on the Estimates with the appropriate Minister.

I am aware the Minister for Justice is carefully examining the recently published Law Reform Commission report on family courts. I will fully support whatever steps are taken following examination of the report. The administration of the court system needs overhaul and I am sure the Minister will take the necessary steps to bring the position under control, such as appointing more Circuit Court judges.

I am amused by Fine Gael Deputies who on financial matters accuse us of being a "tax and spend" Government while in other areas clamour for increased expenditure across all Government Departments. They should remember they cannot have it both ways. If this is a "tax and spend" Government the money is spent in areas of need, such as health, education, social welfare and legal administration. Perhaps they should tell their spokespersons on finance that if spending is necessary taxation is the other side of that coin.

I do not think we should——

I have not finished speaking.

We will not take lessons of that nature from the Minister.

I am not giving lessons, I am making a statement.

The Minister is making this a combative debate and if he wants it that way so be it.

The Minister should be allowed to continue without interruption.

I have taken note of the comments of Deputies Currie, Keogh and Shatter on the family mediation service. I am pleased to tell them it is my intention in this year to extend the family mediation service outside Dublin for the first time. I expect there will be an additional family mediation service at another centre outside Dublin by the end of this year. I am sure Deputies opposite will accept that as a welcome progression in this excellent service and I pay tribute to those who work in it.

In addition I intend to set up mediation procedures which will use the services of private mediators to fulfil the needs in other locations. I do not promise there will be a comprehensive mediation service in 1994 but it will be considerably expanded. That is reflected in the substantially increased money sought to be voted in the Estimates before the committee. I am sure the Members opposite welcome this.

As has been said the family mediation service has operated from its Dublin base up until this year. It has done valuable and important work there but as and from 1994 we will move onward from that position.

The Minister's comments on "tax and spend" allegations by Opposition spokespersons were unwarranted. We are in favour of spending money when required. We welcome additional necessary expenditure on the family mediation service. In approaching a divorce referendum, this is an essential service which must be expanded.

While I welcome the Minister's intention to extend the service soon outside Dublin to one other location within the State, that is not good enough. He should tell us of his commitment to a national mediation service and the establishment of offices in the major population centres. I referred earlier to the problems of people in Donegal, Mayo, Cork and all the rural areas where marriage breakdown is unfortunately increasing. It is unfair and unrealistic to expect these people to travel to Dublin. The circumstances in which they would seek mediation would proably make it more difficult for them to make the long journey from Donegal to the capital. I cannot over-emphasise the importance of this in the context of the forthcoming divorce legislation. It is unfair for the Minister to point the finger at us and to suggest we are facing in two directions because of our insistence on spending such money. He is trying to score political points, which he should not be allowed to do.

As the Minister is responsible for steering through the divorce referendum, is it his view and is it part of Government policy that regional family courts should be established, as the Law Reform Commission recommended three months ago?

(Carlow-Kilkenny: I welcome any improvement in the mediation services because there is no point having one centre outside Dublin. However, at least it is a start. Mediation must be made available to people. As politicians, it is important to tell people we are doing our best to help marriages because the public thinks we want to introduce divorce and to break up as many marriages as possible. As Deputy Currie said, it is vital to provide mediation services across the country so that people can avail of them to help their marriages. The Government must be seen to provide every facility, rather than talking about introducing divorce or even setting up mediation centres to help the success of a divorce referendum. I spoke to a solicitor who worked in a free legal aid centre and she was run off her feet. I do not know how she could have time to deal with complex problems. Although more money is being spent, and I accept that, these advice centres must employ people to do a reasonable job under normal pressure. The solicitor to whom I talked was rushing off to Sligo to try to sort out other problems but there is a limit to what they can do. Obviously, the demand is greater now than it was in the beginning, I hope the Minister will increase the resources in this area so that those who work in these centres will provide a service which people may use when they call there.

Deputy Browne was not here earlier when I explained that by the end of this year the service will be doubled. I am sure he will accept this is a large increase in the service. Ten new law centres will be opened this year and, for the first time, every county will have a full or part-time service. This increase in the free legal aid service is unmatched in any previous year. Some of these new centres have already been opened, while the remainder will be opened by the end of this year which will improve the situation substantially.

On the mediation services, apart from the additional centre outside Dublin to be opened this year, facilities will be available for access to mediation at other locations, using private mediators under the ambit of the family mediation service. I know Deputies will welcome this.

I welcome that, but the Estimate does not provide money for it. Will money be provided for the facilities which the Minister mentioned?

Approximately £300,000, which is an increase of 144 per cent on the previous year.

I already referred to that. It is an increase of 144 per cent, but that represents an increase from £123,000 to £300,000. It is an increase for the whole service, not an additional amount for the expanded service throughout the country.

The expanded service I am talking about will be paid for by this £300,000. This money will cover what I indicated.

Will the extra £300,000 cover another service which is being provided at one location in this State, as well as the additional services to which the Minister referred?

That is correct.

That is not enough money in the run up to the divorce referendum. If the Minister spent less time giving jobs to his friends, employing spin doctors and consultants and organising trips to the World Cup at the people's expense, he would have more money for services.

We are dealing with the Estimates.

Having raised the issue of equality in the upper echelons of the Civil Service, I want to raise another matter in relation to equality in the private sector. The Minister said that proposals were well advanced for new employment equality legislation to prohibit discrimination, not only on the grounds of sex and marital status, but on wider grounds, including parental status, sexual orientation, religion, age, disability, race, colour, etc. I favour that approach. However, this creates a problem, which I want to discuss with the Minister.

It is clear that any new legislation of this type will mean that employers must put in place a range of monitoring and control mechanisms to protect themselves against potential claims. Difficulties will arise for small and medium sized employers. IBEC favours encouraging positive action against discrimination among its members. It supports the principle of non-discrimination for any reason and the idea of employment on merit. However, it is aware that serious practical issues must be addressed, as far as emoployers are concerned, if the Minister goes ahead with this legislation. It wants to have an input to the legislation and to be consulted on all the details. However, this has not happened, despite requests from IBEC. Perhaps the Minister could say why this has not happened?

I tabled a Dáil Question on this issue following an editorial in IBEC's newsletter in April where it complained that the Minister for Equality and Law Reform, Deputy Taylor, had not consulted employers about the draft proposals. As it only had a preliminary note of the Minister's intention to amend and extend the existing legislation, the proposals were open to speculation. I received a reply which stated that consultation was taking place and that written submissions were being considerd from many quarters. Employers will be principally involved and charged with ensuring that any such legislation is effective. It is not good enough to treat them in such an offhand way. There should be full and detailed consultations with IBEC. It should not be expected to deal with this matter on the basis of second-hand information about the Minister's more detailed intentions.

In its last letter, IBEC told me it had asked of a meeting, but the Minister had not agreed to this.

Have the heads of a Bill been prepared? Why has there not been full consultation with employers on the Bill? I want an assurance from the Minister that there will be full consultation with employers, particularly IBEC, the employers confederation, to work out the practical implications as far as employers are concerned, How best they might be dealt with and, in particular, how small and medium sized businesses will be able to cope with the terms of any such new legislation.

The position outlined by Deputy O'Keeffe is not correct. Work on the employment equality Bill is at an advanced stage. Heads have not yet gone to Government. As Deputy O'Keeffe knows from his ministerial experience. I am not in a position to divulge to IBEC or anyone else the indicators of legislation which has not yet gone to Government. As far as consultation is concerned, a document was sent to IBEC and other interested groups outlining the thrust of the legislation and they made representations in connection with it.

I held a formal meeting with IBEC to discuss the legislation on a formal basis. I also had a long, useful, fruitful and informal meeting with a top level executive in IBEC. I am in correspondence with IBEC and I have assured it that I have no problem meeting or consulting with it in so far as the proprieties of the situation will permit. I have no problem if IBEC wishes to have a third meeting, I suggest that it may contact my private secretary to arrange it.

This aura being put about that IBEC has not been consulted is not correct. It is being consulted and I have no problem in this regard in so far as the proprieties of the situation allow. Although I cannot do this, some elements in IBEC have suggested that I divulge to it the indicators of legislation which has not been finalised and which has not gone to Government.

IBEC is so concerned about this that it complained publicly in the editorial of the April edition of its newsletter. It focused on the lack of consultation and its concerns on the behalf of employers about the practical implications of such legislation and the cost and control mechanisms of it. It stated that for small and medium sized businesses which do not have the resources to put in place such mechanisms, the proposed legislation is likely to be a nightmare. There must be some way IBECs concerns may be taken on board so the principle, which I support, may be adopted but that small and medium sized businesses are not placed in difficulty because of such legislation — I would not go as far as to say put out of business.

I raised this issue by way of a Dáil Question on 4 May 1994 and I gave a copy of the reply to IBEC. The last letter I got from IBEC a couple of weeks ago stated that it found the Minister's response to my Dáil Question unsatisfactory and that it avoided the main issue. Consultations to date have been based on a statement of intent to legislate and on second-hand information in relation to the Minister's more detailed intentions.

I understand the Minister must conform to a certain degree of confidentiality on the final proposal which will go to Government. Have proposals been circulated to other Departments? Why have there not been detailed consultations with IBEC in relation to the problems it has mentioned, publicly and to me. I am not satisfied with the Minister's response and I urge him to take into account points I have raised on behalf of employers who are in favour of anti- discrimination legislation, but who are concerned about the adverse impact such legislation may have on employment and small and medium sized employers. I would like an assurance from the Minister that he will discuss these concerns to enable me to report back to IBEC that the Minister is agreeable to discuss the situation in detail.

I have written to IBEC to tell it that I have no problem meeting and consulting it, subject to the limits of the proprieties of the situation. Deputy O'Keeffe knows I am not in a position to divulge details of proposals for legislation which have not gone to Government. I met IBEC formally on one occasion and I also met a senior executive informally on another when we discussed this at length. I believe I had a good meeting with that official. IBEC was given the same briefing as other organisations with an interest in the subject. I will continue to consult, subject to the limitations of the proprieties of the position.

In my initial comments I asked the Minister about unmarried fathers and adoptive parents. I also asked him about his Department monitoring other Departments.

The ruling of the European Court on unmarried fathers and adoption is being examined and a preliminary reading of the issues suggest that they relate to adoption. Legislative changes in the adoption area are dealt with by the Minister for Health. In so far as the judgment may have consequences for guardianship, I have already indicated that I am looking into the matter and examining the judgment. If it is necessary to deal with it, I will bring forward legislative proposals in due course. From preliminary examination, I understand the primary issue raised in that case related to adoption, which is dealt with by the Minister for Health.

The Minister for Finance has statutory responsibility for pay and conditions of Civil Service staff, the Minister for the Environment has similar responsibility for local authorities and the Minister for Health staff in the health area. Other Ministers have responsibility for staff of State bodies coming within the ambit of their respective Departments.

It restricts the Minister's power.

I operate within the law as I find it.

Report of Select Committee.

I propose the following Draft Report:

The select committee has considered the Estimates for the Public Services, 1994, for the following Departments: the Offices of the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Defence and all other Estimates relevant to these Departments. The Estimates are hereby reported to the Dáil.

Is that agreed?

Report agreed to.

Ordered to report to the Dáil accordingly.

I thank all those who contributed to today's procedings, particularly the Minister, his officials and the party spokespersons. This concludes our consideration of the Estimates for all Departments and associated bodies within the remit of this Select Committee.

The Select Committee adjourned at 12.50 p.m.

Top
Share