Vol. 463 No. 3
27 Dr. Woods asked the Minister for Equality and Law Reform the plans, if any, he has to raise the consciousness of the positive contribution of women in the home; the practical measures, if any, that are planned to facilitate women returning to the workforce and in achieving equality with their male counterparts; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [6331/96]
The positive contribution of women in the home is already well recognised in Irish society.
The accommodation of women returning to the workforce is primarily an issue of labour market policy. It is integral to labour market policy generally and, accordingly, specific measures in this area are pursued under the aegis of the labour market services of the Minister for Enterprise and Employment. In addition the evolution of more flexible employment arrangements and growth of employment opportunities in the services sector has greatly facilitated women returning to the workforce.
My interest in this area has focused on promoting greater reconciliation of family and work responsibilities. In particular I had legislation enacted on maternity and adoptive leave and I am currently pursuing agreement on a parental leave proposal at EU level which would form the basis for introduction of such leave in Ireland. These provisions while facilitating women already in employment will also reduce barriers for women not in the labour market to return to employment.
In addition facilities for childcare support for working parents are being promoted through my Department's pilot scheme for childcare projects in disadvantaged areas. This scheme is particularly targeted at parents who would otherwise have difficulty in taking up training, education or employment.
Participation of women in the labour force is increasing whether resulting from married women returning to the workforce or from reductions in numbers leaving the workforce. This increased participation by women will enhance the more effective use of skills and experience of women and should, in due course, lead to them achieving greater equality with their male counterparts. Progress on equality will be reinforced by the forthcoming employment equality legislation.
The forthcoming employment equality Bill will be marvellous and I certainly look forward to it. The Minister referred particularly to the labour measures under enterprise and employment which would encourage and support employment. Will he agree that what is needed is a recognition to raise the consciousness of the positive contribution of women in the home as well as practical measures to facilitate women who wish to return to the workforce? There is great concern among homemakers about their pensions, their rights to individual entitlements and the need to recognise the contribution they make in the home, as well as the contribution they can make by participation in the workforce. It is likely that in future women will want options and it is important to provide ones which recognise the choices they wish to make. They should be comprehensive options which would support them in those choices, whether it is to work full-time in the home, to be full-time in the work-place with support for the home and child care, or a mixture of work and time spent in the home.
I am not clear what Deputy Woods is suggesting. My intention is not so much to raise consciousness about the position of women but to raise their status and I have indicated ways we are doing that. FÁS also operates a return to work programme, aimed at people wishing to re-enter the workforce having been absent for a long period, which attracts a high percentage of women. Funds are being ring-fenced for the first time in the development plan of the human resource operations programme of the EU, targeted at employment and training courses for women, including those returning to work, those training for non-traditional work, management, training of child care workers and managers, guidance and information initiatives for women, etc. The objective is to raise the status of women.
The Minister mentioned the FÁS return to work programme and the £7.7 million funding from the EU. Is any portion of that for women in the home who wish to participate in self-employment, or must we inquire elsewhere about that? I would have thought the Minister for Equality and Law Reform would set the criteria and terms of reference for other Ministers and specify the issues which need to be addressed. Many of the women do not feel they are low in status, they just want practical help. They feel their status is quite high — a woman whose family is growing up usually feels her position in society is good but she would like money to go with the status. This is where matters like entitlement to pensions arise because such women are excluded as their position is interrupted by virtue of time spent in the home caring for children. Those practical considerations need to be addressed.
Deputy Woods has long experience in the provision of pensions; I have no brief in that area but I deal with the recommendations in the Second Commission's report, on all aspects of women's lives. The implementation of those is proceeding apace. The up-to-date report of the monitoring committee will be published tomorrow and Members will see a good basis for satisfaction with the level of implementation of those recommendations since the report was published in 1993.
The Structural Funds money is administered by the Minister for Enterprise and Employment and, according to my information, it is broadly targeted at employment and training courses for women, including those returning to work, those training for non-traditional work, management training, training for child care workers and managers, and guidance and information initiatives for women. Those are the parameters of those ring-fenced funds but further detail on any specific item can be obtained from the relevant Minister.
Many women will be pleased to hear about the EU funding of £7.7 million. However, I would like to return to something which was basic to all women and also to the Minister's plans, the Matrimonial Home Bill, which was held to be unconstitutional, not due to the fault of anyone in this House. Does the Minister consider that putting a similar Bill on the Statute Book to cover the joint ownership of the family home would raise the consciousness of the positive contribution of women in the home and would be a major acknowledgement of their contribution to society and to their families? Has there been any progress on this matter? The Minister said he was re-examining it and I realise it is a fraught issue but has he found a solution to the difficulty with the Bill?
I have been looking for ways to deal with the Supreme Court's constitutional decision but that has not proved possible. My intention in bringing forward the Matrimonial Home Bill was to secure the position of women in the home — the Bill had been around for 13 years before I sought to advance it. It was found constitutionally wanting by the Supreme Court, which I regret. Having regard to that decision, it is not possible to achieve that result in any other way. I regret that and have looked at the matter from all possible angles. The Supreme Court has given its interpretation of that aspect of the Constitution and unless there is to be an amendment to the Constitution the matter cannot realistically be addressed. I have no doubt the constitutional review committee will look at all aspects of the matter and I hope it will take this item into account.
We cannot revisit the Matrimonial Home Bill but does the Minister believe it will be possible to introduce legislation to deal with this difficulty? He said he was re-examining it but is he now saying it will not be feasible?
I introduced the Bill.
The Minister said in this House some time ago that he was re-examining the issue, not specifically the Bill. He realised it was important that women felt they had ownership of their family home and acknowledged this by bringing forward the Bill. Does he now believe he cannot progress it in any way?
If the Deputy is asking if I can devise a method to deal with the finding of the Supreme Court on that constitutional issue, the answer is that it is not possible. That is the Supreme Court's interpretation of a measure which would have vested the provisions of the Matrimonial Home Bill in both spouses. Unfortunately, that has not proved possible and it is regrettable a similar result cannot be achieved by devious means.
The Minister misunderstood my question. When Members acknowledged the difficulties that arose, the Minister undertook to examine the position of joint ownership, or a degree of ownership, of the family home by women. I accept the Bill was declared unconstitutional and I do not expect him to bring it before the House again. However, can we acknowledge the contribution of women in the home by giving them a share in the family property? This may not constitute joint ownership.
Having examined all aspects of the matter I found no acceptable basis on which I could devise a measure that would achieve what I wanted to achieve under the Matrimonial Home Bill. However, I will continue to examine the matter and to consider any suggestions put to me. The nub of what Members on all sides sought to achieve under the Matrimonial Home Bill is not now achievable because of the Supreme Court's decision. I explained this in the House on a previous occasion but I will clarify the matter again.
I accept that.
The decision was clear cut. Automatic joint ownership of the matrimonial home is not possible because of the Supreme Court's decision and I have not found a reasonable or satisfactory means of getting around that, but I will continue to examine the matter.
