Seanad Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 6 Jul 1983

Vol. 101 No. 6

Joint Committee on Women's Rights: Motion.

Professor Dooge

I move:

(1) That, for the purpose of facilitating consultation between the Houses of the Oireachtas and representatives of organisations concerned with the position of women in Irish society, it is expedient that a Joint Committee of both Houses of the Oireachtas (which shall be called the Joint Committee on Women's Rights) consisting of 11 members of Dáil Éireann and six members of Seanad Éireann be appointed.

(2) That the Joint Committee shall—

(a) examine or propose legislative measures which would materially affect the interests of women;

(b) consider means by which any areas of discrimination against women can be eliminated and by which the obstacles to their full participation in the political, social and economic life of the community can be removed;

(c) consider specific economic and social disadvantages applying to women in the home and bearing in mind the special nature of their contribution to the community, to recommend effective policy and administrative changes to help eliminate these disadvantages;

(3) That the Joint Committee shall have power to send for persons, papers and records and, subject to the consent of the Minister for the Public Service, to engage the services of persons with specialist or technical knowledge to assist it for the purposes of particular enquiries.

(4) That the Joint Committee, previous to the commencement of business, shall elect one of its Members to be Chairman, who shall have only one vote.

(5) That all questions in the Joint Committee shall be determined by a majority of votes by the Members present and voting and in the event of there being an equality of votes the question shall be decided in the negative.

(6) That the Joint Committee shall have power to print and publish from time to time minutes of evidence taken before it, together with such related documents as it thinks fit.

(7) That four Members of the Committee shall form a Quorum, of whom at least one shall be a Member of Dáil Éireann and at least one shall be a Member of Seanad Éireann.

(8) That the Report of the Joint Committee shall, on adoption by the Joint Committee, be laid before both Houses of the Oireachtas forthwith, whereupon the Joint Committee shall be empowered to print and publish such Report together with such related documents as it thinks fit."

Minister of State at the Department of Justice (Mrs. Fennell)

I am pleased to recommend these motions today concerning the setting up of the Joint Committee on Women's Rights and the Committee on Marriage Breakdown. It marks a milestone not only in our parliamentary history but in the development of the movement for women's rights. I will speak firstly about the women's rights committee. The Oireachtas has been accused from time to time — and I believe rightly — of bringing through legislation by default and nowhere has this been more apparent than in the legislation affecting women's rights, whether we are speaking of employment equality rights, the right to family planning services, the right to serve on juries, or tax equity for married couples.

Women have had to fight bitterly for these rights and in many cases succeeded in winning them only with the assistance of the courts, or through the EEC. For a community which has spent such a great deal of its intellectual resources in seeking to establish our identity as a nation, it is regrettable that when it comes to social issues — women's rights being just one of a number of key social issues — our efforts have been sadly bereft of originality and vigour. We have reacted with indifference and indeed occasionally outright hostility to social developments which have enhanced the economic and social position of women in the community and rarely have we taken a lead.

I am hopeful that the setting up of this committee will mark a break in this pattern and that we will now see a fresh approach to the examination of the barriers — both legal and otherwise — which still exist for women in attaining their full potential. I believe in this context that while profound changes have taken place in the role of women and in the contribution they are making to the economic and social life of the community, the potential contribution they are capable of making is far more considerable if measures are taken rapidly further to promote and facilitate changes in their role. Since the publication of the Report of the Commission on the Status of Women just over ten years ago, considerable progress has been made in removing the basic and more overt forms of discrimination.

There is, however, a wider range of measures open to society actively to promote and facilitate greater opportunities for women, which I hope the Oireachtas committee will be addressing. For instance, many women, particularly women working full-time in the home, are still insulated from the full economic and social life of Irish society, for such reasons as lack of community development and organisation; lack of cultural and recreational facilities; failure to organise job opportunities and job arrangements to facilitate married women and the persistence of traditional views about jobs appropriate to women. The underlying demographic, educational and labour force trends demonstrate clearly the need to create new opportunities, facilities and attitudes if our economic and social growth is not to be seriously retarded by restricting the potential contribution women can make.

Too often lately one hears economic and social commentators suggest that if married women vacate their jobs or are actively discouraged from continuing in them we might be helping to ease our unemployment problem. To such people I would say that it is not a simple case of arithmetic — one group cancelling out another. The opportunity cost of depriving the community of the talent and expertise of a particular category of workers would be very real. The challenge is to create job opportunities for all those who wish to work rather than deprive women because of their sex and marital status of their right to work.

One of the terms of reference for the committee refers to the identification of the disadvantages in various fields as these apply to women in the home. Though the number of married women gainfully employed outside the home is increasing significantly — from 37,000 in 1971 to an estimated 105,000 in 1983, an increase of 68,000 — the majority of married women continue to make their considerable contribution to the community as housewives. In 1981, the estimated number of married women in the economically active age group non-gainfully employed was 477,900—four times more than the number gainfully employed.

The economic contribution of the non-gainfully employed married women has never been included in economic measurements. If an imputed value were given to this contribution equivalent to the average female weekly earnings in industry in, say, June 1983, that is, £88.12 for a 37 hour week, the total value would be £2.190 million or about 18 per cent of the estimated GDP in 1982.

But even without such statistics we all know the immense contribution in terms of caring, nurturing, unpaid voluntary work of all kinds and general support, which such women make. Increasingly, economic and social policy must have regard to the status and well-being of the housewife, the widow and the unmarried mother and particularly those with low incomes, large families and handicapped children. Fiscal policy, children's allowances and other possible family allowances are areas which must be examined to see how an equitable economic balance can be struck between those who are gainfully employed and those who are not but whose work is an important foundation on which the family life of the community rests. Apart from considerations of economic equity, it is clear that much more needs to be done to provide a fuller social, cultural and recreational life in local communities. A primary function of organised community development must be to draw housewives out of their individual isolation into a mutually-supportive community system of activity and service. Public policy in such matters as housing design, neighbourhood design and facilities must also be fully supportive of the housewife in basing its standards on the ascertained living, working and recreational needs of the family. A particular concern must be those areas such as rural areas and inner-urban areas where economic and social changes have left a residue of poor living conditions whose impact on the housewife is particularly acute. The social planning services and facilities in the large new residential communities developing around each sizeable urban centre are as important as the basic housing and roads. Greater attention will have to be given to those services and facilities particularly in the earlier stages of new residential developments.

There still exist some forms of discrimination in social, cultural and economic fields which our existing equality legisiation does not cover. I refer to such sexual discrimination as access to clubs etc. and difficulty for married women in acquiring hire-purchase credit. In certain other countries such discriminations are covered by an all-embracing Act such as the Sexual Discrimination Act in the UK. I hope that the Oireachtas committee will consider these remaining discriminations which can act as a particular irritant for many women wishing to participate fully in certain fields. Remedies for the removal of these barriers should follow on this consideration.

As Minister of State with responsibility for women's affairs and family law reform, I look forward to participating in the work of the Oireachtas committee which I believe should complement the work I am carrying out in my ministerial capacity and hopefully give a lead in certain areas. To bring the debate on women's rights into our Parliament is, I believe, a very positive step and should be a welcome indication to Irishwomen that their legislators recognise their contribution and will work to remove the remaining barriers to their full participation in society.

I should now like to move on to the Committee on Marriage Breakdown. This committee derives its origin from the Government's commitment that the problem of marital breakdown should be seriously considered by the Oireachtas. I know that when the Government advocated the approach of consensus in the setting up of the committee there were many people who felt that this was a mere stalling tactic and that the committee would never get off the ground. I am therefore very glad that we have been able to get the agreement of the major parties in Dáil Éireann on setting up the committee and would like to register appreciation to the Leader of the Opposition and Whips. I hope that this agreement and willingness to work together will be reflected in the way in which the committee will tackle the task before it and, finally, in the report which it is required to produce next year.

The central terms of reference of the committee are "to consider the protection of marriage and of family life, and to examine the problems which follow the breakdown of marriage, and to report to the Houses of the Oireachtas thereon".

The agreed statement which was issued on 24 June made it clear that these terms of reference will enable the committee to consider every aspect of the matter including any legislative or constitutional changes which might be necessary. Within the terms of references agreed, the essence of the committee's work will be to examine the problems of marital breakdown and consider various responses. Many people have strong personal views about this issue but the place for discussion of what are indeed widely differing views to be considered is now in the joint committee.

The joint committee will consist of 11 Members of Dáil Éireann and five Members of the Seanad. The committee will have power to send for persons, papers and records and, subject to the consent of the Minister for the Public Service, to engage the services of persons who are specialists with technical knowledge to assist it for the purposes of particular inquiries. Subject to its terms of reference, the committee will agree on its procedures and will, I am sure, be open to submissions from the interest groups which are active over the years in the area of family law and marital breakdown and have done invaluable work, amongst whom are AIM Group, Divorce Action Group and FLAC.

Looking at the available records of families affected by marriage breakdown some people, I am sure, conclude that society has changed for the worse. This is perhaps a simplistic view and does not take into account the types of pressure which a changing society and different expectations create. The time is gone when the traditional authoritative role of the father and the subservient role of the mother at home looking after the children would be acceptable. The increasing movement towards equality of the sexes and the emphasis in modern thinking on individual human rights have brought about a situation where the emphasis in modern marriage is now on sharing and companionship. Couples nowadays expect more and are less prepared to put up with difficulties they would have readily accepted years ago.

There is correctly in the terms of reference emphasis on the protection of marriage and as I said in the Seanad before, we need to consider how the resources of the State should be mobilised in support of marriage. We also need to look at the way in which the marriage laws of the State in the latter half of the twentieth century should reflect the current practices and moral ethos of society. Above all, we need to admit that there is a real problem and the public are entitled to expect that we as legislators will work together to bring forward acceptable solutions.

I do not think there is any need for me to say more at this stage. I am very glad that the patience of the Government has been rewarded and that the committee is being set up by agreement. It is now a matter for the membership to be determined in the ordinary way of Oireachtas committees and for the date of the first meeting to be set. On behalf of the Government and the Oireachtas I wish the joint committees well.

Mrs. McGuinness

I give a warm welcome to the setting up of these committees and to the commitment which the Minister of State has shown in pursuing these matters. She has shown her willingness to act both in the improvement of the position of women and in dealing with some of the problems that arise with regard to marriage laws in this country. I am sorry that the attendance for this motion is sparse. I notice that the female attendance and the Independents attendance is very high. But among the other parties, very few other Senators have seen fit to come into the House for this motion. After all, seeing that in every consideration of matrimonial law there is both a man and a woman I would have thought that some of the men would have shown more interest. However, if this is the way they behave, they cannot blame us if, in their absence, we do all sorts of things to them that they might not like. I draw attention to the attendance.

With regard to the text of the motion before us, I was very pleased to see that the committee on matrimonial law has a time limit in which it should report. A year's time limit is given. We are all human and I am sure other Senators will agree that most of us do nothing unless the gun is held to our heads and we work to a deadline. There is no doubt that the fact that a deadline is set will make the committee aim at getting something done by that time. I am sorry that the women's committee has not got the same deadline. I appreciate that the problems cannot be so easily quantified but I am afraid that any committee which does not have a deadline might drag on and on. I am thinking of the example of the task force which produced very valuable work in the end, but only after years and years. I hope this committee will not go on for years and years.

The Minister of State said that the terms of reference of the marriage law committee will enable it to consider every aspect of the matter including any legislative or constitutional changes which might be necessary. The wording of the resolution has been carefully framed so as to avoid any mention of constitutional change and above all any possible mention of the dirty word "divorce". The idea is that we should not mention anything so naughty as actually considering the introduction of divorce. I am not going to repeat the arguments which were made in the debate on the divorce motion proposed by Senators Ross and Robb but I consider the Houses of the Oireachtas are showing themselves to be well behind public opinion on this subject when they should be acting as leaders. As the results of opinion polls which were published last weekend in the Sunday newspapers have shown public opinion is largely in favour of divorce.

It seems strange that we should be so worried by the whole thing that even in the Minister's speech the only mention of divorce is that where she named the divorce action group as one of the groups that would be consulted. I am very pleased that they will be and that FLAC and AIM will also be consulted. Nevertheless, we are backing away from the actual problem by saying that we may have to change the Constitution.

One aspect which was raised during the debate dealing with the previous committee was the number of people to be on the committee and the very small number of Senators that are to be appointed. This arises in relation to this committee. I should like to hear from the Government what reasons there are for making these committees so small. Why only 11 members from the Dáil? Why only six members for the women's rights committee and five members for the matrimonial law committee. Perhaps the Independents are becoming paranoid in their old age, but one can only have the feeling that the reason for having such small committees is to exclude the smaller groups both in the Dáil and the Seanad. I understand that a certain arrangement has been made with regard to the marriage law committee. I welcome that but at the same time, in principle, I cannot see what is the rationale behind having six people on the women's committee and five people for the marriage law committee. Why the difference?

I cannot understand the rationale behind having such a small number of people. There are many people both in this House and in the Dáil who would be well able to contribute to the deliberations of these committees. I know that the numbers are agreed between the parties rather than just by a unilateral decision of the Government. One should say it is not just a Government decision but a ready-up by the major parties. Not only would the Independents and small groups be excluded in the Seanad and in the Dáil but the Labour Party voice would be extremely small and one could picture the Labour Party member on the committee not even having somebody to second what he or she wanted to propose.

Can it be said that it has nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that in the Dáil and Seanad the minority groups and the Labour Party have made it very clear where they stand on the issue of reform of matrimonial law? Their position has been made quite clear and perhaps it is not a very welcome one. I do not want to accuse people of deliberately excluding that point of view, but when looked at from the outside it looks very like it. I should like an explanation as to why the numbers are so small.

Mrs. Robinson

I, too, welcome the establishment of these committees because they will be examining two very important areas of our social legislation which have, as the Minister of State said, been neglected or treated in the past in an ad hoc way. I also welcome the Minister of State to the House for the debate on these motions.

The committees, the work they will do and the evidence they will hear and gather will be largely for the education of Deputies and Senators and will provide a structured opportunity to bring together the information and the deep knowledge of the problem which exists in our community. There are various reports and major studies which have been carried out. Individuals, groups and bodies have been calling for reform for decades. Now at last we have a structured opportunity for Deputies and Senators to sit down seriously over the next year in the case of the marital committee and over a somewhat similar period in the case of the committee on women's affairs.

Before I come to some critical aspects, I warmly welcome the fact that these committees have been established. I regret that it has taken as long as it has. I regret the oblique wording of the motions because, like Senator McGuinness, I have some doubts as to whether the motions are sufficiently broad and comprehensive to tackle some of the real problems that exist in the areas of women's rights and marriage reform. We can at least examine them in that context in this debate and seek clarification and assurances from the Minister of State in that regard.

Before dealing with the committees individually and their terms of reference, I join with Senator McGuinness in criticising the size of these committees. It seems very difficult to understand why the committees are so small, particularly with regard to the Seanad participation. There are Senators ready and willing and with a significant contribution to make who would like to participate. Why, in the terms of reference, are we excluding them? Were it not for an informal arrangement being made in the case of the Independents, why are the terms of reference of the marital committee and the women's committee so small that they would appear to exclude Independent representation? I find it very difficult to understand and, like Senator McGuinness, I hope the Minister of State will be able to give us an understanding of how the size of these committees emerged. We have dealt with a number of Joint Committees and they all have different compositions. They all have slightly different terms of reference. I am aware that the major political agreement is the agreement between the Whips expressing a political consensus to the establishment of a committee but behind that, there are some machinations that I should like to know more about on the size of the overall committee and the participation by Members of the Dáil and Seanad.

As regards the committee on women's rights, I welcome the possibility of a structured assessment of various aspects of the position of women in society. I, the Minister of State and a number of other female Members of this House have attended on various occasions when reports of the Employment Equality Agency have been published, for example, and there is no guarantee that they will receive any parliamentary consideration. There is no forum at present in which either annual reports or important reports on various aspects of women in employment can be considered. There is no guarantee that the call in a report of the agency for an increase in the resources or the capacity to fulfil its statutory obligations will be met with a proper response, a guarantee that it will be considered at parliamentary level. Hitherto, all we have been able to do is from time to time put down motions to debate individual reports of bodies such as the Employment Equality Agency. I hope that this committee will provide a structured and considered framework in which the reports and documentations of the agency will be considered and members of the agency and of other bodies who are working in the field of either employment, law or social legislation particularly affecting women will have an opportunity to make their representations.

In that regard I regret that neither in the committee on women's rights nor in the committee on marriage breakdown is there express reference to the single parent family, to the enormous number of women particularly who have responsibility in society for the bringing up of children. They range from the widows to the deserted wives, to prisoner's wives, unmarried mothers and they suffer from a cumulative disadvantage and discrimination which are of particular concern and interest. I hope they will be given priority attention by both committees. When I come to the committee on marital breakdown I intend to criticise to some extent its rather narrow terms of reference in a similar vein. But I would hope that the committee will not fall too smugly into a consideration of married women and their possibilities of access to employment. Of course the situation of married women in employment and the situation of married women in the home is important but it is by no means the whole of the situation and it overlooks the factual situation of the number of one-parent families, the vulnerable families in our society. There are reports, such as the report of the NESC on family income support, which have clearly demonstrated the much greater disadvantage of one-parent families. There are various aspects of that, lack of structures and supports in our society, which aggravate the difficulties for the single parent who is not always but is, by and large, generally a woman with responsibility for young children. Also there is the position of single women in our society. There are very severe economic and social discriminations against single women which must be of considerable concern to this committee.

I hope that the committee will be able to exert some political force and muscle in getting reforms, because it does not seem to be enough to argue the principal and even get agreement on the principle. I remember a debate in this House on the issue of domicile, the dependent domicile of married women. I do not think there was a Senator who expressed disagreement with the principle and yet there is a lack of willingness to follow through and ensure that either agreement on the principle or reports on issues of social concern resulted in legislation. So I would hope that these committees, perhaps through the good offices of the Minister of State with responsibility for women's affairs, will have a very direct line with the parliamentary draftsman's office and with the proposals for legislation.

In that regard I am not quite sure what relationship the Committee on Women's Affairs would have with the legislative committee which is concerned about law reform that we were speaking of, because much law reform would be in the area of women's rights. There may be some early teething problems in trying to ensure that these committees work constructively together but I do think it is important that the committees do not just compile reports but that they think very effectively of ways in which they will be able to advance the pace of social legislation. In that regard I feel that if there was a commitment from the Minister of State to produce a White Paper on the basis of the report by the Committee on Women's Affairs on a whole range of reforms which would be introduced in a programmed way over a brief period of, say, 18 months or two years in this area, that would be an incentive to the committee and it would focus attention on the particular areas. It would be a very helpful focus in that regard.

I would also hope that the committee will not just consist of the converted who tend on the whole to be the women Members of the Dáil or Seanad. I hope that there will be a significant number of male Members who will participate in the committee out of a conviction of the usefulness to them personally of the material the committees will have access to, by being able to hear the submissions and receive papers and evidence from various bodies and the opportunity they will have to examine in more detail some of the problems of our society. I feel that it would be a reflection on the attitude of the male Members if there was a general opting out of this committee and leaving it somehow in a backwater as merely a committee that should be dealt with by women but is not really of concern to the mainstream of Deputies and Senators.

Finally, in relation to the women's committee I feel that it would be desirable to publicise broadly the existence of the committee and invite submissions. That has been one of the very healthy developments in the last decade certainly in Irish life — the number of women's groups of various sorts that have sprung up, not just in Dublin or the other larger cities but all over the country. These smaller groups very often have a knowledge of the real situation for women in their area, are much more open than in my experience are some Members of the House in a formal sense on issues in relation to the discriminations and problems that exist in our society and the changes we need to bring about.

This committee — the same would also be the case with the committee on marriage reform — should be concerned to publish more widely than is normally the case in Oireachtas committees, their existence and openly invite submissions from groups and bodies and individuals who have a view and an experience and expertise to offer to the committee. I hope the committee will address itself to the importance of compiling statistical information on this situation. That would also be true of the marriage committee. We lack proper compiling of statistical information which is the basis for properly based and researched reforms in the particular areas.

Turning to the committee on marriage reform, I have already made one criticism which is a criticism equally of the two committees, that in this committee on marriage breakdown there is a focus on the protection of marriage and of family life. That, in an Irish context, could be a very narrow focus because family life under the Constitution is confined to the family based on marriage. I would be concerned that the committee does not so confine itself. Indeed, I hope that the committee will address itself to the question of whether the definition of family under the Constitution is too narrow and discriminatory in that the interpretation of the family under Article 41 by the Supreme Court in successive cases has resulted in family rights under the Constitution being confined to the family based on marriage. In a recent decision of the European Court of Human Rights the court made it clear that family rights under the European Convention on Human Rights are not confined to the family based on marriage, so that it is certainly possible that in narrowing the range of family rights under the Constitution to the family based on marriage Ireland is, potentially at least, in breach of our obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights.

It also gives rise to very real difficulties for couples who are in a stable relationship and where the relationship results in children and they would many if free to do so but they are not free to do so. Those couples and their children suffer from very severe legal, social and economic discriminations in our society. I know the Minister of State is on record, and I welcome this, as being concerned to introduce legislation to remove some of the legal discriminations in the area of illegitimacy. This is very important and I would press her to go ahead with that and not require a committee to report on it.

Apart from the situation of illegitimate children there is also the severely disadvantaged situation of partners who are not in a formal marriage, or perhaps even who think they are in a formal marriage but the marriage would not be recognised by the State. They cannot, for example, avail of the Family Home Protection Act or the barring order remedy; they cannot avail of maintenance or they cannot look for a share in the family home. All of these measures of reform in the area of family law exclude what are in reality family relationships but which are not so recognised by the State.

The major issue which this committee will have to face is the issue of divorce. On this, as the Minister of State well knows and as the House well knows, the Labour Party have a very clear position and a position that we will hold to very firmly in this committee. It is a position which was given public expression recently by the party leader, the Tánaiste, Deputy Spring, in which he made it very clear that the Labour Party are unequivocally committed to the introducing of divorce law. In a sense we have to wait until, hopefully, through the force of the arguments that will come through and of the evidence and statistics which will come through and of the sheer human misery of so many people caught up in situations that they cannot get any legal redress for, that the thrust of all this over the next year will result in a majority at least, if not a consensus, of Members agreeing to amend the Constitution. But I would hope that the amendment of the Constitution that will result from this committee on marital breakdown will not just simply be a deletion of the prohibition on divorce: I hope it will be a redefining of the family for the purposes of the family rights under the Constitution and the whole structure of approach to families and the relationship between parents and children and the type of society which we want to have for a very young and growing population and that we will not be afraid of the issues that we will have to discuss and not have preconceptions of what is the norm. The norm is not fixed and rigid; it is a matter of looking at the values in our society and also the extent to which, to a certain extent, those values are changing and adapting. Rather than consider any change in this area as a totally negative thing we should look at the real situation and face up to it and ensure that our laws are helpful and supportive in this area and not negative and destructive.

I will conclude by repeating my warm welcome for the establishment of these committees and the structured opportunity that they will afford to Members of both Houses and to those working in these areas in Irish society who have for a very long time wondered why the Dáil and Seanad are so slow and so obtuse and so incomprehensively unaware of how serious the social problems are in our society and of the critical need for reform. This is indeed a red letter day. I would certainly hope that the committees would get off the ground before both Houses rise and will have their first meetings before they adjourn and will come back in early September for further meetings so that substantial work can be done before both Houses come back into session in the autumn.

Mr. B. Ryan

These committees are in principle at least most welcome in the sense that there is obviously important work to be done in both areas. May I record briefly my dissent, to put it mildly, to the extraordinarily inconsistent manner in which the size of committees on Joint Committees have been arrived at. Most of us in politics are supposed to be numerate and since we are, among other things, given charge of regulating the economy of the country which is effectively measured by numbers. I would have thought that some basis for arriving at the numbers and the membership of committees would not be beyond the wit, imagination or indeed the calculation of those who do these things. So, like many other people I should like to know wherein lies the offending individual or individuals who choose the size, scale and the numbers of these committees.

I would like to talk on the committee on women and the role of women in society because it needs to be stressed over and over again that in the context of this House, the assumptions made very often in the business of this House and the assumptions made very often by politicians in their own lives understandably are a direct antithesis of the values that a society which regarded women as equal participants in society would espouse. We do not really believe in this House that women's problems are as important as the problems which bedevil the male half of society. I have mentioned this before and I am mentioning it again and this criticism is as much directed against myself as anybody else: on the occasion in the the Members' Bar in this House when a vote of no confidence in the previous Government was being debated after the news on the television "Today Tonight" came on and everybody turned down the volume of their own conversations and the television was turned up to watch what we assumed would be yet another programme about ourselves and our affairs and our spectacle and so on and we were all fascinated. It turned out to be only a programme about rape in which case the television was turned down again and all of us, including myself and some prominent female Members of the Oireachtas turned back to our discussions about our own internal preoccupations.

I say that as much in criticism of myself as anybody else but that is where we politicians have to begin our analysis of our real attitudes to the role of women in society because it is in those instinctive responses that we demonstrate the conditioning and values of generations. There are of course a whole host of areas of practicality that have not even begun to be approached in terms of equality in society. One in particular that needs to be reiterated again and again is the relative levels of payment of women and men in manufacturing industry. It is still a fact that women earn only about two-thirds of what men earn in industry and that is after years of equal pay legislation and after years of commitment to the idea of equality.

So, in this country we seem to be very willing to espouse equality except where hard cash is involved and this criticism applies as much to the trade union movement in many cases as it does to employers. I suspect that deep in the hearts of many of my colleagues in the trade union movement is a firm conviction that after all they are only women and their husbands are probably working also. If it is a widow, she will also have a pension and therefore you do not find the type of passion that one would expect in an area of such obvious discrimination and inequity and equality as one would expect from a crusading organisation like the trade union movement generally.

An even more appalling area of neglect and one that I hope this committee will direct its attention towards is the huge host of unorganised women in the work force, the whole mushrooming service industry, the catering industry, fast food industry and all the areas where trade union organisations rarely penetrate and where women are coping with the most appalling working conditions for the most appallingly low wages in many cases. And we have not even begun to talk about it. Let it be said again and again that an economic recession is not a justification for any perpetration of structural injustice. If there is a limited cake available in a society and the cake is not getting bigger then that is not a justification for perpetrating inequality. Therefore if women are badly paid in large areas of our society then it is not good enough to say "Wait until next year," or "wait till growth resumes." People in employment are entitled to be given proper living and working conditions. That is as much the fault of the trade union movement which shows a singular lack of enthusiasm for organising these huge areas of employed people as it is of anybody else. The position of women within the social welfare code is well documented at this stage but it is still a fact and nothing so far has been done about it. In particular, there is the extraordinary fact that in most areas it is very difficult for a woman to get any legal access to her husband's social welfare payments if he is still living in the home. The extraordinary justification for that that I have had put to me is: "Well if you were to try to take it from him he would probably run away and then we would have to get a maintenance order and so forth." I do not believe that if the position was reversed that a virtually 90 per cent male Legislature would dismiss the issues so simply.

It is important to realise that in a peculiar and particular way women are victims of poverty in our society. This is an area which is not particularly referred to in the terms of reference but I think in terms of any examination of the role of women and the injustices towards women in society it is important that this committee should identify that section of women who are poor in a particular way because they are women and are poor.

It is a fact, for instance, that women live longer than men and therefore among our old people there will be a far higher proportion of women and all the appalling injustices that we do to our old people particularly affect women. We have the extraordinary collection of social conventions which means that, for instance, a widower will have plenty of access to social activity. He will be able to go to pubs, golf clubs and to various places on his own. A widow, on the other hand, is debarred by social convention from many of these things. It is not as easy for an unattached widow to get involved in social life again. We create a whole series of mystiques around women which at the end of it all do more harm than good to women and leave them detached and isolated from society and when they are, as they usually are, left on their own since 70 per cent of women are predeceased by their husbands, we leave them with what was conceptually a position of elevation but in fact it excludes them from most social activities.

Women are in a special way the victims of unemployment. They tend to be in the areas of employment which are most vulnerable to recession. They tend to be in the areas of employment which are poorly paid and also they tend to be the ones who very often have to hold a family together on the pittance of an income that people on unemployment assistance receive and therefore again in that area of poverty women suffer in a particular way. I mentioned it earlier and I will just refer to it again: women suffer in particular from one of the most appalling forms of isolation and deprivation that urban society can generate and that is loneliness because of the things I have just referred to. Women in particular are afflicted by loneliness. A committee like this must look at male attitudes to women in a fairly critical light. It has for instance become unfashionable in this country, probably as a reaction to the idiocies of a previous generation to talk any more about pornography. We have decided more or less that because of the appallingly stupid things we did in the past we are now going to pretend that we are fashionable and liberal and trendy and pretend that pornography does not exist. Pornography is an offence against women. Fundamentally it is an offence to treat women as sexual objects; it is corrupt, decadent and materialistic and harmful to women.

There is no reason for anybody in Irish politics or in Irish society to do otherwise than take exception to pornography. We all have our definitions of pornography and I and the Society to Outlaw Pornography would have very different definitions. That is not to get away from the fact that pornography is an offence against women and we have no reason to believe that there is some sort of absolute canon of liberalism which makes all forms of pornography acceptable in the interest of something. It is an offence against women and it encourages a very unpleasant male attitude towards women.

The fact that after years of work by the Rape Crisis Centre it is still very difficult to persuade the Department of Justice that a woman who has been raped should if possible be examined by a female doctor is an indicator of our insensitivity towards women. There is a story that can be told about at least one of the doctors who was until recently involved in Dublin in dealing with victims of rape which would horrify one and yet it seems to be difficult to get this simple message through. There is no major issue of policy involved but it is an area where men never have to suffer the sort of trauma and pain that are involved and yet we do not seem to be able to get that simple message through. We have an enormously long distance to go.

It would be an interesting — but I suspect it will not happen — challenge to this committee to look at the role of women in the major institutions in our society and the role and attitude of the major institutions to women. I have already mentioned the trade union movement. I have already mentioned politicians. It would be an interesting challenge if this committee were to look at the attitudes of the Churches, who are a major institution in our society, to women. It would be a major and quite revolutionary undertaking and one that is badly needed both within the Churches and outside them. I suspect it will not happen but sooner or later all the Churches will be forced either by the pressure of women from within the Church or the absence of women from the Churches to face up to their responsibilities to women. I suspect it will be more the latter, that is their absence than the form of their activities that will persuade the Churches to do so.

I would envisage two different complementary roles for the committee on women's affairs, one, to work for the whole myriad of legislative changes and indeed probably constitutional changes that are necessary if there is to be genuine equality between the sexes, secondly, to work towards the change in male attitudes towards women, the sort of things I talked about before, the sniggering that goes on in male company about women that we all need to grow out of. There is a major educational and value-changing role which will not be achieved in a short period but without which we can have no real equality.

The committee on marital breakdown is of course extremely welcome but the primness of the language in the terms of reference must be astonishing to the 70,000 people that we know to be victims of marital breakdown. It must be even more astonishing to all the run-of-the-mill politicians, backbenchers like myself who chase all over the country and who will now tell you that consistently week in, week out at their clinics one of the most important and most difficult and most intractable problems they are running into is marital breakdown. The way the terms of reference are written one would think that this was an emerging problem affecting a small number of people under very isolated circumstances instead of being probably the biggest social problem, after unemployment, facing this country, the fact that marriages are breaking down in large numbers and at an increasing rate. Probably if we ever get the figures people will be horrified.

I mentioned before here what Fr. Fergal O'Connor said about ten years ago. In 25 per cent of Irish marriages, in his estimation, husband and wife do not talk to each other. We are not talking in prim language about a minor problem. We are talking about a huge social problem. It is extraordinary that, in the terms of reference, the word "divorce" cannot be mentioned. Apparently if it was mentioned a large section of the Oireachtas would not have accepted this committee. I do not have any great enthusiasm for divorce. I have even less enthusiasm for fudging issues and pretending that problems can be solved by ignoring them. If somebody could convince me that he had a way of solving the problem of marital breakdown which did not involve the introduction of divorce, or at least the deletion of the constitutional clause on divorce, I would listen very carefully.

I am quite conservative about attitudes to marriage, the stability of marriage and the responsibility of people who undertake marriage and in particular bring children into the world. Those who most vigorously defend that Article of the Constitution seem to be singularly lacking in realism about the scale of the problem, in imagination about how to tackle it, and in compassion for the people who are the victims of that horrible situation. As we have done so often before we drive it underground.

I hope these committees are successful. I hope that women's rights in one case and marriage breakdown in the other case will be the major items on the agenda, not political point-scoring, not an attempt to display who is most committed to the defence of the Irish family unit in the face of alleged onslaughts from materialistic secularism and that sort of nonsense. I hope compassion will be the guiding light of the committee on marriage breakdown. I hope a broad vision of Irish society, and not just a narrow view about a couple of issues, will dominate the committee on women's affairs. In conclusion, it would be extremely regrettable if women only were to take an interest in the committee on women's affairs. The problems of women in Irish society as I have often said here before are as much the problems of men in Irish society.

Mrs. Robinson

Hear, hear.

Mr. B. Ryan

A properly equal society in which women and men were treated totally and properly as equal and complementary would be to the enrichment of both sexes. It is not so much a question of one section of society achieving their rights as of both sections of society achieving their full development. That is what the development of women is about. It is as much about the development of men as it is about the development of women. I hope the committee on women's affairs does begin to attack some of the fundamental questions of values and attitudes that underlie the whole inequality of women in Irish society.

Professor Dooge

I should like to make a brief intervention in this debate. The motions are concerned with the establishment of the last two of nine committees. The two committees we are setting up now are certainly as important as any others and in my view more important than some. It has been a matter of very distinct concern to all those interested in the subject matter of these two committees that long delays and uncertainties were encountered along the way. We can all be grateful that we are here this evening to establish the two committees.

There is one point that I would like to deal with very briefly because I do not think it would be fair to leave it to the Minister of State to deal with as part of her reply. This relates to the question of numbers. To the best of my knowledge of what has occurred in this particular regard, the Minister of State carried no responsibility for the reduction in numbers in regard to these two committees. Senator McGuinness said that she was disappointed in regard to the question of numbers generally on our nine committees, particularly disappointed with the number of Senators and most particularly the number of Senators on these last two committees.

In regard to the question of these numbers generally, the original proposals for this new committee system brought forward by Deputy John Bruton the standard committee size was nine Members of Dáil Éireann and seven Members of Seanad Éireann. The first thing we must note about this distribution is that in fact it is generous to Seanad Éireann, virtually an equality even though there are only 60 Members in Seanad Éireann and 166 Members in Dáil Éireann. I commented at an early stage of the discussions that even these numbers might well be increased. It was decided not to do so and there were two reasons for this. Both these reasons are important. It is certainly my earnest hope that the committees we have set up in recent weeks and are setting up today will be very different committees from Oireachtas committees in the past. If they are not we are wasting our time. On the last occasion we discussed the establishment of committees, Members of this House mentioned the difficulties of finding a quorum, of people coming into committees staying for a short while and then leaving, and so on. It is the intention of Deputy John Bruton that we should try to get away from that. Therefore it was the intention in these proposals that have come forward that a Member of the Oireachtas should, except in special circumstances, serve only on one Oireachtas committee, so that a person would have a commitment to the work of his or her House of the Oireachtas and also a commitment to one committee. If we are to improve the performance of Oireachtas committees this is a necessary thing, a serious commitment to one committee rather than one divided between more than one committee.

If we take it from that point of view, and I think it is a reasonable one, and if we look at the overall numbers proposed for Seanad Éireann, we find in fact that of the places available on the nine joint committees there are 59 Seanad places. We allow the Cathaoirleach to remain in his isolation. Very few Senators will be on two, but by and large, every Member of this House will be assigned to one committee and one committee only. This is the intention, as I understand it from various conversations I have had over the last few months, in regard to the size of the committees generally.

Equally, we should look at the type of the committee that would thus be formed. If we had every one of our committees consisting of nine Deputies and seven Senators we then get a committee of 16. If we say that is insufficient then it should be substantially increased. We would get committees of quite a different type. If you take a committee of 25 persons, the group dynamic of the way in which that committee tackles its job is very different from that of a committee of 12 to 15 or 16 members. Once again we are looking for a particular type of committee. Concentration of commitment and a size that will enable committees to deal not merely with a superficial survey of the topics entrusted to them but a really deep examination. Certainly in the committees that we are concerned with here this evening, nothing but deep examination, nothing but hard commitment to the committee, is going to bring the result that we hope will come from these committees.

If we look at the number of committees and we try to think of how these committees are going to do a first class job, I do not think that there is that much wrong with either the total numbers of members or with the division between Dáil Members and Seanad Members. We can be satisfied with the number of Senators except for the two committees that we are discussing here this evening and except for the Committee on State-sponsored Bodies. I want to say quite frankly I think the responsibility for these lower numbers does not lie with the Minister of State and it does not lie with the Government. The Government would have been content with the original numbers nine Deputies and seven Senators in this regard. I do not want to go any further than that. I do think that in fairness to the Minister for State I should say what I have said.

I do not intend to go into the question of the workings of these committees. I have already mentioned that I consider them committees of great importance. Indeed I hope to serve on one of these two committees myself in which case I hope to have plenty to say about the scope of that particular committee and about the work it has to do. I would like now as a senior Member of this House to say that I am glad that I am here to see these committees established and will be gladder still when I see these committees report and I will be happiest of all when I see the recommendations of the committes implemented and achieving a real reform in Irish society.

Mrs. Honan

I suppose it was remiss of me that I did not get in at an earlier stage. A shock, though it may seem, I warmly welcome these two committees. The Leader of the House talked about the composition being nine and seven, and that gives this side of the House only two or three members. I will be serving on one. I did not get the chance to serve on the two. I totally agreed with Senator Dooge when he said you should opt for the committees to which you know you can give your full time and commitment. Where my parliamentary party were concerned I did not opt for any other than the one on health. I already have a place on the Committee on Procedure and Privileges. I have now taken one of the places on the marital breakdown committee. I am glad to tell the Minister that, while it took a bit of chat to get them to agree to these committees there is total and absolute support within our party for the setting up of them. It would be wrong to go into all the different details of what might be the end result. I and other members of my party have taken their places on both committees. We will participate and we will help in any way we can.

Since nobody formally welcomed the setting up of the two committees on behalf of Fianna Fáil I do so sincerely now. I do this as one of the conservatives in this House. Having served for so long in public life I have to see what is real out there, and I am doing that also. I wish both of those committees well. For the Minister's sake, for ours and, indeed, for the sake of all the people of this nation on behalf of my party I do hope we will work together and that the end result will help everybody.

Mrs. Bulbulia

I should like to put on record to my unequivocal welcome for the establishment of these joint committees both on women's rights and on marriage breakdown. I was very interested to hear Senator Honan indicate that perhaps our reaction to her welcome might be one of shock. It is indicative of how far along the road we have travelled when a self-confessed conservative like Senator Honan welcomes with such warmth and evident determination the establishment of these committees and sees their necessity in the modem day Ireland for which we are in the business of legislating.

I was also intrigued to hear that in her party they felt it necessary to have a little bit more chat about these committees, which is a very nice way of dealing with prevarication and delay about which some of us who felt extremely impatient about the establishment of these committees were perhaps less charitable in our private moments. It would be unkind of me at this historic moment to hark back to that delay. I certainly welcome most warmly the establishment of these joint committees.

The Minister of State who is here at the historic setting up of these joint committees made what I would consider to be a very hard hitting speech. It certainly grasped some of the nettles which I feel this committee will be in the business of grasping. She also said that in the past we have very rarely given a lead. I consider the lack of leadership which public representatives have shown in this area as a great weakness in the past. Because of their size and composition those committees will have a very strong commitment and determination to pursuing these areas. I feel that we are going to see leadership and we are going to see these committees given a lead in the area of public opinion. This I am very glad of, and I hope the recommendations which they bring forward will be backed very speedily by legislation which will implement them.

I liked the reference Senator Robinson made to a White Paper followed by a legislative programme covering a couple of years. This is important. I should hate to think that there would be any evidence of betrayal of women and betrayal of those who are involved in marital breakdown in these committees if we did not have this follow through of legislative change. I should hate to think that these reports and recommendations would be filed under "miscellaneous", and left to gather dust for years to come and that it was just an exercise in verbal waffle. I hope very dearly that I will be honoured to be given a place on one of these committees and that there will be a follow through. That is significant.

There has been very much discrimination against women in the past. When you think that, for so many years women were on the outside of Leinster House, knocking at the door, begging for recognition, it certainly points up all the change that has occurred when we women in this Chamber and in the Dáil Chamber are able to stand on our feet and welcome the establishment of these historic committees. It is indicative of the pace and the change in Irish society that this has come about, and it is to be welcomed.

There is a danger in a time of recession that there would be a lunge towards fundamentalism. I have noticed in areas where there is a particular emphasis on the crisis in unemployment, that when unemployment is being discussed, the old shibboleths and old discriminations rear their heads. It is suggested that married women should get back into their homes again and their right to work, which is a basic fundamental human right, is to some extent under threat because of the economic situation. I do not like to see that. We had a debate on it in this House and it caused a certain ripple.

This is something the committees will have to keep a very close eye on. Because we are in an economic recession, women should not become the casualties of the tragedy of unemployment with which we are all trying to cope. A structured opportunity now exists to discuss these problems and, certainly, looking at the area of marriage breakdown, there is no doubt in my mind that, following the debate we had in the House on this issue, there is a very strong recognition and realisation among Senators that marriage breakdown is a reality, and is one of the very great tragedies of our time. Even our conservative Senator Honan has gone on record as recognising the fact that marital breakdown is a reality and that we must be prepared to recognise it, and to face up to it, and to do something about it.

Time is running out and I realise the Minister would like to reply to the debate. Once again I warmly welcome the establishment of both these committees. They are vital and necessary, and they give relevance to this House, and the other House of the Oireachtas, and to all those people out there who are looking to us with a feeling of expectation that we will recognise the problems and that we will get on with the business of doing something about them.

Mr. Ross

I shall be very brief. I do not share the great enthusiasm that I have felt amongst all sides of the House for these two committees. The Seanad has shown once again an extraordinary capacity to congratulate itself on something. If we were to achieve something that would be much more useful. I was brought up in a school which believed, strangely, that Governments were meant to govern. I do not believe that these all-party committees will achieve a great deal. It has taken three months already for these all-party committees to be set up, even for their terms of reference to be set up. That in itself is a great problem. We are now delayed on the marital breakdown report by one year. I see in the terms of reference — and there is great distinction in the terms of reference of the two committees which are being set up — that the committee on marital breakdown is to report in one year — to report. The committee on women's affairs is to propose legislation and to recommend. On that there is no limit. There is no time limit for the report on the one that is to do specific things, but on the one which is not to do such specific things, there is a time limit. There is a significance in that.

I should like to say a word about the composition of the committees. A very odd thing has happened here. The Independents who have led the fight on marital breakdown, who were the only people to put down a motion in this House on marital breakdown, have no inherent right to a place on this committee. I do not know what is going to happen about this but, as the numbers stand at the moment, those who have led the fight for divorce, and those who have been eager to debate marital breakdown, have absolutely no right to sit on this committee. It may be that an arrangement can be made that an Independent can actually sit on the committee as it stands. It is utterly wrong that as of the setting up of this committee, no Independent who is part of a group which had the greatest input into this subject is on the committee.

I do not understand why, on the marital breakdown committee, the word "divorce" cannot be mentioned. That is the crux of the matter. I cannot understand why the word "divorce" was not mentioned in the Minister's speech, because this is the crux of the marital breakdown committee. There is no point in giving us platitudes about the protection of marriage and family life and examining the problems which follow the breakdown of marriage and reporting to the Houses of the Oireachtas thereon, and then going on to talk about legislative or constitutional changes. If that means divorce, why can we not say so?

What we are talking about is divorce. If we are not talking about divorce, let us say we are not talking about divorce. One way or the other let us be realistic about it. Let us not refer it in a self-congratulatory way to a committee which will report to the Houses of the Oireachtas and then that report will be laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas. We have absolutely no guarantee of any legislative action afterwards. The committee is not even meant to make recommendations about legislation, according to its terms of reference.

I should like the Government — if they are a Government — to say: "Yes. We will go ahead and do something about these things ourselves." If there is discrimination against women, which there is, it is patently wrong. We do not need a committee to sit ad infinitum to tell us that. If there is discrimination it should be legislated against. If divorce is right, it should be introduced. We do not need a committee to sit for a year and possibly produce platitudes. The Government can then sit on the report which is laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas.

These committees are, unfortunately, a great let-out for those who recognise this as a problem. These committees will come up with very watery conclusions. The last all-party committee on the Constitution, which was a very thorny subject, reported on this issue and nothing was done about it, as on several other issues. The Government should be giving a lead here, and not kicking these two very sensitive subjects away to committees, and leaving them for at least one year with a great sigh of relief.

Mr. Browne

Cuirim fáilte roimh na coistí anseo agus tá súil agam go n-éireoidh go geal leo mar tá leas na tíre ag brath orthu. I am not an expert on women's affairs. I happened to catch one in a moment of weakness and she said: "Yes, for better or for worse until politics do us part." She is still with me and I hope she will stay with me.

Having heard Senator Ross speaking just now, I want to express a view that, is important. I compliment the people who drafted this motion, and the Minister in particular, for laying emphasis on the role of the women who work at home. The impression is given or taken that only women who go out to work daily have problems. Many women who stay at home are very happy at home and have a very important role in looking after children and husbands. Unfortunately, some women are not happy at home. They must be taken into consideration. I am glad to see that there is a good deal in the Minister's speech dealing with women in the home.

This is where I want to refer to what Senator Ross said. I am glad the terms of reference for the committee on marriage breakdown are to consider the protection of marriage and the family life. The idea will run rife that this is a committee on setting up divorce in Ireland. There are some people who quite genuinely feel that divorce is needed immediately. There are others to whom it is complete anathema. An examination of marriage breakdown is very important and must be done in a positive way, and not in a negative way. Using the word "divorce" can often prejudice people in advance. There are problems which, if tackled properly, might prevent many marriage breakdowns: housing, finance and young marriages. People are getting married so young now that they find it difficult to stay together. You want a certain maturity for marriage, and a certain toughness. It is not all love all the way.

I hope that this committee will do good work. Half of the population are women, and half of the married couples women. There may be discrimination against men in many ways but, if we are to have a happy population, the other half of the population must see that they are getting justice and that we are looking after their problems.

Minister of State at the Department of Justice (Mrs. Fennell)

I should like to thank Senators who contributed to the debate this evening. This morning, because of the last minute features of the agreement to the terms of reference, we did not have time for a debate. I was sorry about that, because I know there are many people in the other House who wanted to contribute to the debate on both these committees. I am certainly very pleased to hear the comments here this evening. They will help me. Many positive points were made. I am sorry Senator Robinson is not here at the moment. I am quite sure neither of these committees will fall smugly into any particular area, or overlook any vital aspect of either marital breakdown or women's affairs.

I agree with another point she made with regard to the publicising of the fact that the committees have been established. I know there is a great deal of public interest in the committees. In fact, for me it has been a stop-start project to the extent that many people have phoned me and contacted me to know when the motions would be moved in the Dáil or in the Seanad because they would like to come in to hear the debate. Therefore, there is a lot of public interest. I do not intend to go into any of the details of what they will be dealing with but I hope the committees will be publicised, particularly the committee on women's rights, in prominent areas where women will see it. This need not necessarily be in the main dailies, but in places like the women's magazines, and so on. It is important to make the information readily accessible for them.

Another point made several times was the fact that there is no time limit on the women's committee. I hope that committee will be making interim reports and will be consulted and consultative and work very much along with me in my Department. There will be no stagnation in legislative programmes or policies because of the existence of the committees.

Since my appointment I have listened in this House to very eloquent debates on the issues relevant to the committees. Every politician who has been elected to either House of the Oireachtas knows that the issues of marital breakdown and women's rights need special and sustained consideration. It will take more than eloquent speeches for us to get our programme and planning together and seriously take these two issues on board in the Dáil and in the Seanad.

I do not believe any time will be wasted. I feel very happy that I am in politics at a time when these working committees are being set up. I am very happy with the welcome they have received and I thank Senators sincerely for that.

Question put and agreed to.