I welcome the Minister for Equality and Law Reform, Deputy Taylor. Last week we had a fruitful meeting which indeed was our first meeting. I think everybody would agree that the experiment went well. In order to allow as many members as possible to make a contribution and to ask as many questions as they wished, the key word was "brevity". Just before I ask the Minister to make his opening statement may I ask if the timetable is agreed? Agreed.
Vote 33—Equality and Law Reform
Vote 33—Equality and Law Reform.
May I make a suggestion for future meetings? It is a bad idea that this Committee starts its meetings at 10.30 a.m. on occasions when the Dáil is sitting. It is my understanding that the House is not sitting today, but in the context of Friday meetings on occasions when the Dáil may be sitting, perhaps the procedure should be that we meet at 11 a.m.
I suggest that we meet at 10 a.m.
I agree.
On occasions when the Dáil is not sitting I would be very happy for us to meet at 10 a.m. but on days the Dáil is sitting some of us may wish to be in the House for the Order of Business.
The intention is that the Dáil will not be sitting and that the committees will normally meet on a Friday. There will be no conflict in relation to that matter.
Would it be possible for us to consider a 10 a.m. start to finish at 1 p.m.?
That would be a matter for the Committee. If it is convenient, we could agree.
The Estimate for my Department for 1993 amounts to £5,795,000. The stated increase of 26 per cent over the 1992 provisional outturn must be treated with a degree of caution. While the figures under subheads A1 and from B to F are comparable, the provisional outturns for 1992 for subheads A2 to A8 are based only on estimates calculated in retrospect in other Departments, such as Justice, Enterprise and Employment and the Taoiseach's Office. The Votes of these Departments have been adjusted to take account of staff transfers.
The main item of expenditure is £3,006,000 in subhead C1 in respect of the grant-in-aid to the Legal Aid Board followed by £1,412,000 in subhead A1 in respect of salaries, wages and allowances for the Department's staff. Expenditure on the Legal Aid Board, the Conciliation Service and the Employment Equality Agency shows varying increases while there is a decrease in the grant for the Commission on the Status of Women. The allocations for FLAC and the Council for the Status of Women are unchanged. Since this is a new Department the expenditure under a number of subheads covering office machinery, office premises etc. includes provision for estimated initial "start up" costs of the Department, such as fax machines, word processors and telephone equipment which should not arise next year.
The overall Estimate for the Department must be regarded as rather tentative at this stage until we have more experience of how well we are resourced to carry through the legislative reforms and other initiatives contained in the Programme for a Partnership Government. My initial assessment is that the staffing situation is rather tight and I am currently in the process of exploring ways and means whereby the pace at which the legislative programme is being implemented can be expedited.
The Programme for a Partnership Government states that the aim of this Administration is to create economic prosperity and social justice. The preconditions for the achievement of that objective must include social consensus, social solidarity and the broadest possible degree of democratic participation.
Among their main priorities the Government has identified the creation of greater equality throughout Irish society. This includes equality for women, for the disabled and the handicapped and for travellers, coupled with the elimination as far as possible of social disadvantage and poverty.
The Government regard as a priority issue the need to modernise and to humanise our laws, both as regards social legislation and the fairer application of law throughout our public administration. The Government's intention is to implement their programme in conjunction with the commitments contained in the Programme for Economic and Social Progress and the Community Support Framework, as agreed with the European Community.
Given the problems which face us as a nation, we are obliged to seek new policies and strategies that can be rendered both more effective and more efficient than previous methods in addressing economic and social disadvantage and in securing the best value for money. The focus of social policies has to be reviewed and adjusted to ensure that relief is directed towards those whose needs are greatest. The prevalence of unemployment, and the related increase in the incidence and degree of poverty, have made the relief of distress difficult at a time of budgetary stringency. In trying to reconcile social policy objectives with budgetary constraints our priority must be to ensure that the most vulnerable members of society are properly protected irrespective of cost.
Because of our determination to eliminate inequalities in the case of disadvantaged groups and recognising the need for greater cohesion in measures to combat discrimination, the Government decided to set up a separate Department which would be responsible for seeing that equality became a reality through institutional, administrative and legal reform. This is the task which has been entrusted to me as Minister for Equality and Law Reform.
This Government is wholeheartedly committed to the elimination of discrimination in our society against women, minorities and people with disabilities. To achieve this end two major pieces of legislation are being prepared in my Department on employment equality and on equal status. While the employment equality legislation will deal with discrimination in the workplace, the proposed equal status Act will deal with education, the provision of goods, services and facilities and the disposal of accommodation.
The proposed equal status Act will be a complex piece of legislation and our aim is to get it right. Towards this end the first stage of our approach is to hold discussions with parties and institutions which will be affected by the legislation, so that the heads of a Bill can be drawn up. We will also be looking at anti-discrimination legislation in other countries for possible models.
In tandem with these major pieces of legislation, my Department is undertaking a number of other initiatives geared towards achieving equal opportunity in Irish society. The introduction of a specific requirement to gender-proof Government decisions means that each of the decisions the Government takes will be examined for its implications on women, and very importantly, for any differential implications the decision has for women as compared with men.
A strategy of positive action has also been set in train to achieve gender balance, over the next four years, in appointments to the boards of State bodies. A Bill to provide for maternity leave for adoptive mothers should shortly be before the Oireachtas — indeed, before this Committee for consideration.
The Report of the Second Commission on the Status of Women has given a major impetus to reforming measures in the equality area. At present I am engaged in establishing with my fellow Ministers a programme for implementation drawn from the Commission's report. A committee will shortly be established to oversee and co-ordinate implementation of this programme.
This Department has been given the mandate of achieving equal opportunity in Irish society. In order to deliver on this it is essential that we keep in regular contact and discussion with the representative groups which come within our remit. Through regular dialogue and consultation with bodies such as the Council for the Status of Women we can work effectively to take account of people's concerns and to bring about positive change. I am committed to maintaining this process of dialogue so that we can address problems arising in a root and branch way and take decisions that are both informed and effective.
As Minister for Equality and Law Reform, I am concerned with improving the status of women in employment, not only by means of legislation but also through greater promotion of positive action programmes.
The Report of the Second Commission on the Status of Women in its recommendations advocates a more balanced society. The Government is also committed to this vision for society and, through the efforts of my Department, will seek to ensure that equality becomes more a reality, through institutional, administrative and legal reform.
My commitment to the achievement of equality of opportunity in employment acknowledges that the public sector has a vital role to play in this process, and can provide leadership and models to private sector employers who may have yet to take on board equality as a principle in their operations. In line with the commitment in the Programme for Economic and Social Progress a system of monitoring equal opportunity initiatives in State-sponsored bodies, local authorities and health boards, which seeks to evaluate progress and to provide critical baseline data, is already under way in my Department. The absence of pertinent data is in itself both a reflection of the under appreciation of the need for and the value of equal opportunities in employment and an obstacle to the targeting of efforts to eliminate the inefficiencies which are inherent in unequal treatment and practices.
The monitoring system is currently the subject of review and extensive consultation is taking place with the public service authorities involved so that the work being done will not only ensure effective monitoring but also stimulate organisations to develop their own goals and targets for the future. I am also considering how best more transparency in private sector performance on equality of opportunity in employment can be achieved.
I will be looking to the Employment Equality Agency to make a significant contribution to promoting positive action initiatives. The agency already provides a valuable service to the public and to employers and trade unions. The proposal envisaged by the Government for development and extension of employment equality legislation and indeed the commitment to develop equal status legislation to combat discrimination beyond the employment area, will have major implications for the agency and will require to be addressed in legislation. I would particularly like to commend the Employment Equality Agency on its efforts to employ more innovative strategies and actions which help to eliminate discrimination in all of its spheres. The recent launch of a specially commissioned video aimed at eliminating sex stereotyping of material targeted at primary school children is a good example of the agency at work.
Another important area which the agency continues to profile for attention is the elimination of sexual harassment at the workplace. Far from being an isolated phenomenon, this is a serious problem for many women and indeed some men. Ireland's Presidency of the Social Affairs Council in 1990 promoted the adoption of an EC Resolution on the Dignity and Protection of Women and Men at Work. The European Commission produced a code of practice in 1991. I have recently been considering how Ireland can best build on this Commission measure. I envisage the agency playing a key role in progressing this matter in full consultation with the social partners.
In accordance with the commitment given in the Programme for a Partnership Government, arrangements are in hands for the drafting of legislation that will provide for adoptive maternity leave. I hope to be in a position to introduce the related Bill in this House in coming months.
I have identified as a priority the development of new employment equality legislation. The proposals for amendment of the existing gender equality legislation are under examination in the light of the commitments in the Programme for a Partnership Government and the recommendations of the Second Commission on the Status of Women. In addition, I am concerned to ensure that the new legislation in this area is sufficiently broadly based so as to prohibit discrimination not only on the grounds of sex or marital status, but on a wider range of grounds. Already, I have commenced an extensive process of consultations and have invited the interest groups concerned to submit their views to me in relation to the possible scope and content of such legislation.
The extension of equality legislation to cover non gender grounds obviously is a major advance and will require detailed and in-depth consideration. Nevertheless, I aim to progress the preparation of this legislation as quickly as possible.
My Department has responsibility too for civil law reform. The extent of this remit covers a diverse area embracing a range of individual subjects touching on numerous aspects of social, economic and financial matters and, most importantly, human relations.
I propose to concentrate my attentions, initially, on the family law area. This course follows logically from the Programme for a Partnership Government which sets out a number of specific and express commitments in the family law area culminating in a referendum on divorce before the end of 1994.
The White Paper on Marital Breakdown sets out developments in family law which have taken place since the mid eighties and makes proposals for further action in a number of areas including maintenance of spouses and children, the family home, nullity, legal aid, mediation and family courts, as well as formulating a number of options on the precise form a constitutional amendment on divorce might take.
I have already in this speech concentrated on the Report of the Second Commission on the Status of Women as it relates to my equality remit.
As my Department is a new one I would like to take this opportunity before going on to discuss individual legislative proposals to outline the approach my Department will adopt to its law reform work.
As a law reform Department it is, I believe, imperative that we recognise, and convince others, of the reality that laws are a reflection of the type of society that we live in and want. Laws which remain inflexible in the face of altered realities serve no positive purpose. Rather, they create the impression in the public mind that law is irrelevant to social problems and that law-makers have lost touch with the real world. We have witnessed that, instead of law reform playing a significant role in influencing and responding to people's needs, people have been forced to find their own solutions. For example, marriage breakdown often results in the separated spouses going on to form an extra marital union which the law chooses to ignore, with the result that anxieties and difficulties are created not just for the cohabiting partners, but for the children of the union.
The principle objective of my Department will be to meet this challenge of making civil law relevant to the needs of the people. Nowhere is this more urgent than in the family law area. Notwithstanding the legislative advances in the past decade — in areas such as judicial separation, recognition of foreign divorce and status of children — the report of the Second Commission for the Status of Women, the White Paper on Marital Breakdown and the commitments in the Programme for Government all readily testify to the work that remains to be done to create a more caring and compassionate environment for addressing family issues and resolving family problems. The development of legislative and other reforms to be introduced in the family law area will be built upon the realities of the contemporary family. They will, as a result, necessarily reflect the many changes in patterns of family living.
I hope that there would be general agreement about the need for, and the type of, reform required in this area. Disagreements will, perhaps inevitably, arise on the specific nature of the reforms to be introduced but it appears that there is consensus on the purpose of social policy in the area of family law reform: that is, to provide support for family life and to promote marital stability. It is recognised that given the complexity of human relationships, marriage breakdown is a sad reality for a significant number of families and, consequently, we must ensure that real and appropriate protection and remedies exist for all the parties affected, particularly those most vulnerable when there is family conflict.
There is a longstanding commitment to put legislation in place which will give each spouse an equal share in the family home and household belongings. It is my intention that this commitment will be realised without any excessive delay.
Priority is also being given to the Reciprocal Enforcement of Maintenance Bill. The purpose of this Bill is, inter alia,to allow Ireland to accede to the EC Maintenance Convention. The essence of the proposed system is that civil servants and court staff in Ireland, acting on behalf of the maintenance creditor, will liaise with similar personnel in the appropriate EC state and make the procedures necessary for the enforcement of Irish maintenance orders in these states far more accessible to the ordinary individual.
I am also proceeding with the introduction of a Family Law Reform Bill along the lines of the scheme of the Family Law (No. 1) Bill contained in the White Paper on Marital Breakdown. This Bill will enable the courts to make certain orders making financial provision for spouses and children following the grant of a decree of nullity and, subject to certain conditions, following the grant of foreign decrees of divorce, nullity and judicial separation which are recognised in this country. It will also restate, with amendments, the law which enables a person to apply to the courts for a declaration as to the validity of his or her marriage. The Bill will also provide for significant improvements in existing maintenance arrangements by providing for secured maintenance and lump sum payments and for the making of an attachment of earnings order at the time a maintenance order is being made. It will also give the Circuit Court jurisdiction in nullity cases.
I referred earlier in my speech to the referendum on divorce envisaged before the end of 1994. That is obviously something about which I will be talking to you in some detail when the Committee meets again next year. However, it is obviously a matter that will require continuous attention in my Department throughout the present year and into the next one if the referendum debate is to be conducted in an informed way characterised by open debate based on a full awareness of available — and ultimately preferred — options. I will be seeking to ensure that the divisiveness and bitterness that characterised the 1986 referendum will not be repeated. The genuine fears of many individuals about the scope and implications of divorce will be dealt with fully.
With this in mind, I propose that prior to the holding of the referendum I will have published the precise form that any proposed legislation on divorce will take if the referendum result is positive. I consider this to be of the greatest importance and clearly its fulfilment will exercise a considerable element of my Department's time and energies from now until the divorce issue is resolved.
Aside from the legislative priorities in the family law area which I have just outlined, I am also concerned to ensure that progress is made in relation to the difficult issue of occupiers' liability. I believe that there is a fairly general acceptance of the fact that the current state of the law in this area is unsatisfactory.
I now turn to Subhead C.1 which provides for a grant-in-aid of £3.006 million to the Legal Aid Board in 1993. Deputies will observe that this represents an increase of 11 per cent on last year's outturn. The Legal Aid Board administers the scheme of civil legal aid and advice. Under the scheme, the services of solicitors and, if necessary, barristers are made available to persons of modest means at relatively little cost. These services are provided through law centres, staffed by the board's own solicitors, at various locations around the country. The board now operates 16 full-time and 19 part-time law centres. In the period since 1989 the amount of the grant-in-aid has almost doubled. It has increased from £1.568 million in 1989 to its present level of £3.006 million. Over the same period staff numbers have also been increased and a number of new law centres opened.
The problem would appear to relate primarily to developments in the area of family law in recent years which have led to greatly increased pressure on the law centres. In particular, the enactment of the Judicial Separation and Family Law Reform Act, 1989, had a major impact on the work of the board. Applications for judicial separation under this Act comprise a substantial part of legal aid work and, since it was enacted, the number of persons to whom legal aid was granted has increased each year and continues to rise. We can see the consequences of this in the long waiting lists at many of the board's law centres, referred to so often in the Dáil and Seanad.
I am most unhappy with this situation and have made the provision of additional funding, to facilitate the expansion of the scheme of civil legal aid and advice, a priority. Already I have succeeded in getting the original 1993 allocation increased by £100,000. I have various ideas on how the £100,000 might best be spent and I am consulting the Legal Aid Board in this regard. However, at this stage I do not wish to elaborate beyond saying I envisage that the Legal Aid Board will use the money to avail of the services of private solicitors to reduce the length of the waiting lists in the various law centres. I am conscious that this is only a beginning and I will continue to devote my best endeavours to achieve a significant and lasting improvement in the scheme.
Legislation to give effect to the present scheme of civil legal aid and advice is also in the pipeline. While the non-statutory nature of the scheme has never been an impediment to its operation and development, nonetheless I consider it important that it should be placed on a statutory basis as soon as possible.
The timetable is flexible but I appeal to Members to try to keep to it. Last week time was running out when we got to questions and answers, which was the most worthwhile part of the proceedings.
I welcome the fact we are discussing the Estimates for the Minister's Department. I want to put a marker at this early stage.
I have a great deal of scepticism as to where this Government is heading and as to some of the new arrangements that have been made. The concept of a Minister for Equality and Law Reform was attractive to me for one reason. It seemed that for many years there had been a substantial log jam within the Department of Justice in the area of reform of civil and family law. Some of the attitudes taken by the Department of Justice on occasion could be most charitably described as antediluvian. On too many occasions Ministers for Justice had no clear vision of what was needed in the area of law reform and very rapidly found themselves enmeshed in the cobwebs that seemed to inhabit the corridors of that Department.
I was optimistic that this new Department would at least bring a new pace to legislative reform. I find the Minister's initial comments greatly depressing, as is the Government's current legislative programme. We were told by the Minister that his initial assessment was that his staffing was rather tight and that he is in the process of exploring ways and means whereby the pace of the legislative programme can be expedited. It is clear that the Minister has been given a Department with a trendy and user-friendly title, a Department that is grossly understaffed and lacks the capacity to deliver in the area of law reform. Notable in the legislative programme of this great new partnership Government is that it is simply a mirror image of the continuing legislative programme promised by its predecessor, the Fianna Fáil-Progressive Democrats Government. Some of the main touchstones of this programme are an example of Government continuity by civil servants rather than any great new political departure.
The legislation referred to by the Minister in the area of maintenance has been in the pipeline for some years and has finally worked its way through the relatively inert departmental processes to emerge into the light of day. We will finally deal with the question of maintenance and enforcement of maintenance orders in legislation to be taken in the Dáil next week. The Minister will acknowledge that he has taken no major initiative to bring about that legislation; it simply emerged from the existing processes.
We were told that this bright new Government wanted to make the Dáil more relevant and allow Deputies to act as legislators. We were told we were in a period of great change. The Minister's speech contains many aspirations with which I agree. It is full, if not over-brimming, with pious aspirations and political pleasantries, setting down markets on principles about which the Minister and I have had no argument over the years. The problem with these principles and the idea of greater equality throughout Irish society — we all approve of tackling social legislation and fairer application of laws — is that this Government has failed at the initial stages to take an approach that will allow for implementation of many of these principles.
It is clear that the Minister's Department will lack the capacity for a considerable period of time to produce the large amount of legislation that is necessary. It is clear that if we are to have equality and to bring our laws into line with social reality, Members of the Opposition who produce Private Members' Bills will have to be taken a good deal more seriously than has been the case in the early days of this Government. The Government talks about change, yet the Minister's party voted against the Bill in the Dáil on Wednesday evening to give equality of access to the law to political asylum seekers. A Bill designed to bring our laws in the area of civil and human rights into line with our commitments under the United Nations convention was voted down by this Minister and this Government. Yet two days later a speech containing pious platitudes is delivered to us, stating that we need fairer application of laws and must face social reality. We learned something on Wednesday night about the nature of this Government; we learned that this is not a reforming Government, that it is not a Government committed to making the Dáil Chamber a truly legislative assembly but rather a Government intent on turning back the clock. Legislatively we are now back to the future.
The Minister referred to the Judicial Separation Act and to the fact that it had greatly increased the work of the law centres and the Legal Aid Board. That Act provides a legal means of resolving marriage difficulties which for years had been left unaddressed because our laws were grossly inadequate. This Minister knows that the Bill came before the House as a Private Members' Bill, sponsored by me on behalf of the Fine Gael Party. If, at the time that Bill was published, we had a Labour-Fianna Fáil Government with a majority similar to the one held by this Government, that Bill would have been voted down in exactly the same way as was the Bill in relation to the protection of refugees. That Bill was voted down on Wednesday night for no reason other than the Government did not like the idea of an Opposition Deputy producing a Private Members' Bill.
On a point of order, I thought it was the view of all parties in the Oireachtas that the purpose of these committees was to have a measured debate on a committee-type basis, with an absence of the sort of adversarial contribution being made by Deputy Shatter which is totally inappropriate to the work of a committee of this kind. I would ask for guidance from the chairman on how we should conduct our business. I hope we will proceed as last Friday's Committee was conducted, in an excellent fashion, on a committee-style basis, with an excellent contribution from my colleague in the Fine Gael Party, Deputy Sean Barrett.
We are dealing with opening statements. I agree that last week's meeting was very satisfactory and I hope we will adopt the same approach today. Deputy Shatter is making his opening statement and I would ask him to refer to the matter under discussion.
Obviously I touched a raw nerve. No doubt the Deputy's conscience about what happened on Wednesday night is as touched——
That is not my style.
——as was the conscience of Labour Deputies who were moaning in the corridors about what they had done. I agree we must have constructive meetings in this committee but I am not going to participate in a politically cosmetic exercise in which we all come in here and talk blancmange.
I do not think there is need for these remarks. We had a very constructive meeting last week and there is no reason that this meeting cannot be equally constructive. I make a strong appeal to the Deputy to refrain from passing such remarks.
I did not interrupt anyone last week and I am entitled to make my contribution——
The Deputy came in for only five minutes and left again.
I am not going to participate in a committee in which I am not allowed to express criticism or, if I do, I am barracked by Fianna Fáil Members on issues in which, for the years I have been in this House, they have never shown any great interest other than to be destructive.
I wish to address the question of legal aid as referred to by the Minister. In fairness to the Minister, he would acknowledge that we have great problems in this area. It appears that these problems are not being adequately addressed and are beyond the competence of the Minister in the context of the financial allocation available to him — I sympathise with him in this regard. We have been told that the Minister has managed to secure an extra £100,000 this year for the legal aid fund. In the context of the need in this area, that is a drop in the ocean. This is no great new departure by this Government to tackle what is a huge difficulty. The problem is that a great many people do not have equal access to the law because they cannot afford to pay legal fees or to go to court to have their tragic circumstances resolved.
In the area of marriage breakdown where there is no hope of reconciliation I have long held the view that if people can resolve their problems without setting foot in court they should stay a million miles away from the courts. In 1985 a pilot scheme on mediation was set up in Dublin to provide an alternative mediation service for couples who are prepared to co-operate with each other. I think all sides of the House will agree that this mediation scheme has worked extraordinarily well. The problem is there is no such scheme outside Dublin and the scheme is still operating in the same manner as it operated as a pilot scheme. Despite the Minister's cordial meeting with the people who run that scheme and his expressing support for them, it is clear he has no funds available to him to allow for its expansion on a nationwide basis. The expansion of that scheme on a nationwide basis would reduce the number of couples going to court to sort out their marriage problems. There would be a financial saving to the State in one area of legal aid because the availability of State-run mediation services in the main population centres and the accessibility of such mediation centres on perhaps a part time basis in other parts of the country would reduce the number of people going to the courts. Despite the pious aspirations expressed in this area there is no commitment from this Government to increase the funding to the mediation service and no indication of when a single additional mediation centre may be opened anywhere.
In the context of family law and marriage breakdown, currently our courts are swamped with the number of couples who are trying to resolve their marriage problems. Despite the pious aspirations often expressed in opposition by the Labour Party, it appears there is no coherent plan to tackle that problem. The Minister, in dealing briefly with the issue of divorce, made reference to the White paper produced by the Fianna Fáil-Progressive Democrat Government in the autumn of last year when Mr. Flynn was Minister for Justice. That White Paper contains no commitment whatsoever to establish family courts. Currently there are family cases in the District Court, the Circuit Court and the High Court. Some Circuit Courts are incapable of coping with the number of cases they are asked to deal with. Husbands and wives locked in a marital tragedy often have to wait a year or two years to have their problems resolved and have to use the Circuit Court system in circumstances where they are unable to agree on a basis for separating. That is detrimental to them and it is inimicable to the welfare of their children. District Courts throughout the country are swamped with family law cases. Every day of the week the High Court has at least two to three family law cases before it. The manner in which these cases are dealt with varies.
It is a matter of luck as to whether family law problems are properly resolved in the courts. Some of our District, Circuit and High Court judges who deal with family problems are excellent and show a great deal of understanding and insight. Whether family problems are resolved in a reasonable and sensible way or are exacerbated by a judge who lacks that insight depends on the luck of the draw. Husbands and wives who have to go before the courts nowadays are frequently engaged in a game of judicial roulette. That should not be the case. We need to establish a unified system of family courts with judges who have special insight and training in that area and with the proper back-up facilities. We need to take our family conflicts out of the courts altogether, but where couples have to go to court it should be separate from the current District, Circuit and High Courts. The Government has no plans to do that.
The need to do that in the context of a divorce referendum is even more urgent. It is my view that family courts should be established before we have a divorce referendum. I would ask the Minister to live up to the promises the Labour Party made in this area from the Opposition benches. If this Government with its large number of Labour Deputies is incapable of providing the necessary resources for the legal aid scheme, do not throw your hands in the air and say it is not your fault. The Tallaght law centre in the Minister's constituency has closed its doors to new clients for the next 12 months. I was in Limerick last night where I learned that the Limerick law centre cannot take on new cases for a period of eight months. Currently we are in breach of our commitments under the European Convention on Human Rights in relation to providing access to free legal services for husbands and wives who cannot afford to go to court.
I am conscious of time constraints, but I should like to refer briefly to two other areas. I assume we will have some latitude in the question and answer session on individual Estimates to deal with some other areas. I am sorry to say this but it appears to me that the Minister has a hotchpotch of responsibilities in his Department and he does not have the remit to deal fully with all areas that relate to equality. I say this because there is one particular area which has not been perceived as media sexy by the media. It does not get the headlines that contraception, divorce and other issues seem to get, but yet it is very important and affects thousands of people in this country. I am talking about the discriminations built into our law which affect widowers, particularly those with young families. I tried to raise this issue with the Minister for Equality and Law Reform, by means of a parliamentary question and I discovered he does not have responsibility for this area, that it was switched to the Minister for Social Welfare.
I should like to give a brief example of what I am talking about. If a young husband who works and pays social welfare contributions dies and leaves three young children, his wife will automatically receive widow's contributory pension of £108.50 per week. If she goes out to work, any additional money she earns in her employment does not affect her entitlement to widow's contributory pension because it is recognised that a young mother left on her own to rear young children has all sorts of additional expenses and may need the assistance of a childminder. She is left in a position where she can work and will not be deprived of her social welfare entitlements. Therefore, she can better her life financially and that of her children. There is no such thing in our law as widower's contributory pension. If a widower whose wife has died or has been tragically killed is left with three young children he has absolutely no entitlement to any benefit payment but he may qualify for the lone parent allowance of £80 per week. If he goes out to work and earns in excess of £62 he will get absolutely nothing from the State. That is an appalling situation. Unfortunately, the redress of putting widowers in a position of equality with widows in those circumstances does not fall under the Minister's remit. If that issue is not addressed by the Government the current law in this area will be held to be unconstitutional. The final point I should like to make——
I would ask the Deputy to be very brief because we have gone over time.
The last point to which I should like to refer in the Minister's brief is travelling families. The Minister has a very important brief in this area. It is important that we have in place a plan to tackle the difficulties experienced by travelling families throughout the entirety of this country. It is important to the children of these families that we provide living accommodation, serviced halting sites and the necessary social back-up schemes to ensure they are educated and have the option when they become adults to chose a different type of lifestyle. That means more than simply pious platitudes; it requires commitment.
I would ask the Minister when responding to explain something which I find extremely difficult to reconcile with what we have heard from the Minister on this issue. Dublin County Council, of which I am a member, has a halting site programme which, with great difficulty, we are trying to implement. I should say that in my own constituency when we put a halting site in Cherryfield in Knocklyon I had to fight with the residents and my local community — the people who had voted for me in successive elections — to get them to accept a halting site in that area.
The halting site had been provided and was working with families settled in, but I was reviled by some of the local community for supporting it.
It has come to my attention that a motion has been tabled for a meeting of Dublin County Council next Tuesday calling on the South Dublin Area Committee to recommend that Dublin County Council should not proceed with the Tymon North halting site until such time as there is one site in each electoral area in County Dublin. For people who are not familiar with the workings of Dublin County Council, that is code; it means that the proposer of the motion is opposed to a halting site in Tymon North. The proposer is Councillor and Deputy Eamon Walsh, the Minister's constituency Labour Party colleague who was elected on the Minister's coat-tails in the last election and Deputy Walsh rarely moves without checking that he is in accord with the Minister's views on particular issues. What credibility can the Minister have as Minister for Equality advocating tackling the problems of the travelling community if a constituency colleague from his own party is actively opposing the establishment in his own constituency of a halting site recommended by Dublin County Council officials?
I do not wish to approach these meetings in a destructive way. I know that Deputy Lenihan, an advocate of this hybrid political coalition, would not necessarily be enthusiastic about this, but I take the view that this Government is brimful of cant and hypocrisy and whenever I see it, in these meetings or in the Dáil, I will expose it. If there is a response, I am happy to listen to it, but I will not be muzzled or deflected from doing my public duty by mutterings from Deputy Lenihan or any other Fianna Fáil Deputy who has a vested interest in keeping this Coalition together and in using the Labour Party to con the general public that something new and wonderful is happening when, in reality, it is a continuity of Fianna Fáil in Government.
The two opening speeches were supposed to have finished at 11 o'clock and it is now 11.25 a.m. I know we are trying to find our feet, but I would like to make a few suggestions to you, Sir, because it is my first meeting. From a practical point of view, I do not believe this Chamber is an ideal venue when one has papers and documentation. Proper meeting rooms where we can gather around a large table are much better for the type of committee work that I expect this committee will be doing.
I am pleased that we have this Minister and I am particularly pleased that he is a constituency colleague of mine. It is the first time we have had a Cabinet Minister in Dublin south west. I do not want to be unfair to him by saying that we expect great things of him because very often too much is expected of one individual. He has an important ministry that, if handled properly — not necessarily just by him — could be an important landmark in four years' time.
The Estimate for this Department is very small. Of all the policy Departments of Government this has the smallest Estimate. The only Department which has a smaller Estimate is the Department of the Taoiseach and that does not have a policy function. The Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry which traditionally had the lowest budget, has a budget of £10.1 million this year; the Valuation Office has £9.3 million; the Department of Tourism has £99.78 million; the Department of the Gaeltacht has £43.27 million; the Land Registry has £11.8 million; the Central Statistics Office has £12.5 million; the Office of Public Works has £105 million and so on. This Department has a very low budget of £4.6 million.
We could do with some equality there, perhaps.
The opening paragraph in the Programme for Government dealing with equality states: "A Cabinet Minister will have special responsibility for seeing that equality becomes a reality through institutional, administrative and legal reform". If the Minister is to do the job expected of him, he needs, certainly for next year, a substantially increased budget. Because it is a new Department one cannot directly compare this year's figures with those of the previous year. However, to a large extent people have just been shifted around between different Departments so some comparisons can be made.
The Minister makes great play of the 11 per cent increase for civil legal aid, but the real increase has been in wages and salaries of his own staff of 26 per cent. The other major increases were for office equipment, etc. Given that there has not been a major improvement in this Department but merely a shifting around of people, why was it necessary to buy so much more new equipment and to provide new offices? If we still have the same number of public servants, was there not enough office space to accommodate them under the existing arrangements?
It is disappointing that the Minister made no reference to travellers or to the disabled except in opening when he spoke about his responsibilities. He dealt exclusively with his law reform functions and with women.
I am pleased that civil law reform will be handled, in the main, by this Minister. It is appropriate that it was taken out of the Department of Justice because that Department is traditionally a security Department and law reform has been very far down on its agenda. However, if the Minister has responsibility for civil law reform, why does he not seem to have responsibility for landlord and tenant legislation? I noted in the Dáil the other day that when questions arose in relation to Mespil flats they were taken by his colleague, the Minister for Justice, who seems to have responsibility for that aspect of civil law. Perhaps the Minister will clarify that.
In regard to legal aid, I welcome the increase of 11 per cent. The Minister knows, representing a constituency like ours, that the legal aid scheme is in chaos. It takes a year now to get an appointment at the legal aid centre in Tallaght, and the Minister told us in the Dáil recently that it takes six or eight months in Clondalkin. That is the pattern around the country.
I welcome the increase in the number of law centres, but it is not enough. There is no point in bringing in new legislation if ordinary people do not have access to the law. In addition, although there is a firm commitment in the Programme for Government to put the civil legal aid scheme on a statutory basis, the Minister's concluding sentence seems to put it on the long finger, I worry about it. Perhaps he could clarify it. If the comprehensive legal aid scheme recommended by the Pringle Committee in 1977 was put in place, we would be spending a minimum of £7 million on legal aid more than double what we are spending now. Even the Pringle Committee could not have anticipated the increased volume of family law cases now before the courts.
I also believe that we need to extend the scope of the civil legal aid scheme to cover tribunals, arbitrations, inquests and landlord and tenant matters. The unfortunate women in Mespil Estate, for example, could never get legal aid if they wanted to take a case against any of their landlords. The country has been rightly outraged at the way they have been treated. Yet under our civil legal aid scheme none of them would be entitled to civil legal aid, even though they are people of little means. I believe that is wrong.
I note in the Programme for Government a commitment to examine the possibility of extending legal aid cover to social welfare appeals and to discuss with the social partners the possibility of extending it to employment appeals. I would like the Minister to say if that is the case.
I also believe that we should have civil legal aid for test cases. We had the Best case in court this week, and if it were not for the fact that the lawyers in that case acted on the basis of contingency fees — in other words on a "no foal, no fee" basis — that case could never have been taken. It took 15 years for that family to get justice in the courts. It is appalling that we provide no legal aid in test cases such as that.
I am not unrealistic enough to think that all this can happen overnight; we are talking about considerable resources. Litigation is extremely expensive and beyond the means of the ordinary person. Even if we provide for divorce and update the law on nullity and so on, it will still be outside the scope of most ordinary people to avail of the laws unless they have money. The means test income limit for legal aid is about £6,000 per year. I suggest to the Minister that, at a minimum, all medical card holders should have access to the legal aid scheme and that we should have the same means test as for medical cards. While it is generally the case that all social welfare recipients have access to the legal aid scheme, that is not the case with all medical card holders and that is unfair. The private sector can play a major role in the provision of legal aid. The Minister is well disposed towards that idea because he said so recently during Question Time in the Dáil. It would be far too costly to have a legal aid centre in every centre of population around the country. The Law Society Committee that examined the legal aid scheme and reported to the Government in 1991 stated it would cost approximately £60,000 per annum to operate a law centre with one solicitor and the necessary back-up staff. That was two years ago. Redeploying solicitors from the Legal Aid Board to smaller towns on a part-time basis is just as costly.
Therefore, there is a role to be played by local private practitioners around the country which would overcome the difficulties experienced by individuals in family law cases. The Minister acknowledged that family law cases constitute the largest volume of work in law centres. If one spouse goes to a local centre the other must go to a centre some miles away. If private practitioners were involved in that area such difficulties could be avoided. I acknowledge that the Minister is committed to the legal aid process. I hope he is able to push for substantial resources and, more importantly, a new means test and wider grounds for getting legal aid. We must take care of our citizens and if we are to have equality in reality — as stated in the Programme for Government — access to the law is crucial.
The Minister is well aware that the recommendation for the employment of disabled persons in the public service falls far short of what is necessary. Recent remarks attributed to him in a national newspaper stated that he was committed to employing 1,000 more disabled persons, but he made no reference to that this morning. Will he clarify where those persons will be employed?
Deputy Shatter made valid points in relation to widowers and I share his views in that regard. Single people are badly discriminated against. Most of the people living in the Mespil Road flats are elderly women who had reasonably good jobs, but could not get mortgages because they were single women. The position is not much different nowadays. A constituent of mine who is in her forties and has multiple sclerosis has a free travel pass, but because she is single a companion is not entitled to travel with her. She cannot travel on her own. She is not wheelchair-bound, but she is so immobile that she cannot get on a bus on her own. I tabled a Dáil Question to the Minister for Social Welfare about this matter earlier this week. That is an example of the discrimination against single persons. If she was a married person, her husband would be automatically entitled to a companion pass. Of course, the same applies to single men. Those simple matters make people believe this is an unfair society. My constituent feels that way. She has tried every means open to her to obtain a companion pass for her sister with whom she lives to enable her to travel, but has failed.
Great attention will focus on this country this weekend as thousands of people come here to attend the Eurovision Song Contest in Millstreet. Cameras around the world will focus on Ireland. I came to Dublin from south Kildare this morning and the number of travellers on the road from Kildare town to Dublin is a disgrace. It is a terrible blight on our society that we still have such a major problem in regard to travellers. For too long the problem has been left in the hands of local politicians. They adopt a "hands off" attitude in regard to the location of halting sites. The Minister knows my record on this issue and I know his. Some parts of the country have had to carry the burden of this national problem. The bulk of travellers in this city and county are situated on a stretch of land from Blanchardstown to Tallaght. As the Minister knows, approximately 50 families are living on an unauthorised site in our constituency in Clondalkin. Imagine what it is like for those people and their children on a wet day like today.
The problem will never be solved unless it is taken on board nationally by a Minister of the Government who has the power to give directions to local authorities. Once it goes to a vote of the council to adopt programmes and negotiate on sites, councillors will feel that particular sites are out of the question for a number of reasons. For example, in the case of UCD it was argued that they were not against travellers, but that a site could not be made available on its grounds. They were asked to identify another site, but they were unable to do so. That happens in regard to virtually every site identified around the country and many members of the community believe that an unfair share of the burden is being carried by a certain section. It is in the interests of travellers, the settled community, politicians and this Minister that the problem is resolved. If the Minister can do something on the travellers' issue he will have done an enormous amount of good work.
A task force report was published in 1983 and it is a disgrace that we have made so little progress since then. The problem is much bigger now. The Programme for Government refers to the establishment of a task force. We are great at setting up task forces, advisory groups and so on, but the Minister should introduce the necessary legislation to give him and his Department the power to give directions to local authorities. I understand one local authority close to the Dublin region does not have a halting site. Until such time as that power is held nationally the problem will not be resolved. At present, when one local authority creates more and more halting sites, travellers move to that area and the problem will never be alleviated. Does the Minister intend taking on board that power? Making recommendations to local authorities or telling them what they should do will mean nothing unless the Minister has the power to implement regulations.
I welcome the fact that the Minister intends to implement the recommendations in the Commission for the Status of Women report. I welcome the Government's commitment that by the end of four years 40 per cent of all State boards and Government appointments will be female and that legislation and Government decisions will be gender proofed. How does he intend that to happen? One of the first decisions made by the Taoiseach when this Government took office was the appointment of 11 members to this Chamber, only one of whom was a woman. The Government, and particularly this Minister must lead by example. As the Minister is aware, I have no difficulty with either the person he appointed as his adviser or his programme manager; I know both of them well and they are competent and able people.
However, when the Minister was making appointments to his office he appointed three people, two men and one woman. The woman was appointed to the traditional secretarial job and the men got the posts of programme manager and adviser which carry more than double the salary of a secretarial assistant. That is the problem with many female appointments. Women are usually appointed to the menial tasks or unimportant committees. The Taoiseach made great play recently about all the women on the Adoption Board, but I have been informed that it is difficult to find any man who wants to sit on the Adoption Board. We want to see women in meaningful positions right across the board. In that regard it is important that the Minister finds a mechanism to seek out suitable women instead of appointing political friends or associates of the Government. In the main, voluntary work is done by women, many of whom would make an outstanding contribution to State boards and bodies. The Minister should seek out those women. Some years ago the womens' talent bank was started, but the Minister may need to go beyond that and seek out women of low profile who play an important role in our society, a role which has been well recognised by our President since she took office.
The most useful part of these committee meetings will be the question and answer sessions. I will conclude by giving the Minister some advice. This Department has the potential to do good work, but equally it has the potential to crumble down around the Minister's ears, as it were. Some years ago we had a Minister of State with responsibility for women's affairs. Despite the best efforts of that competent woman she was unable to achieve certain things because there was no commitment at Cabinet level. Is there political will and commitment to help the Minister in his task or will many of his colleagues claim that issues of inequality are a matter for the Minister for Equality and Law Reform? The Minister will have to carry the can in that regard. It is extremely important that from the beginning he is as — I do not like using the word "aggressive" as it is often misinterpreted — forceful as possible. He needs to have the political clout and the political will, not just of his Department but of the Government at large, and the mechanism to ensure that other Government Departments are committed to the implementation of the findings of the Commission for the Status of Women. Many of these findings have implications for several Departments, including the Departments of Health and Social Welfare. This Minister cannot make decisions on a daily basis for other Departments but he must ensure that he has a mechanism whereby he is aware of what is taking place and can take corrective action where necessary.
We will now have the opening statements of the Technical Group.
I welcome the opportunity to speak on these Estimates. Taking on board what Deputy Lenihan said, that we should be moderate in our criticism, I will be moderate in saying that these Estimates are an insult to all the people who fought for equality over the years on behalf of women, the disabled or the travelling community. When this Government was formed much attention was focused on the new Minister for Equality and Law Reform. The argument was put forward that by having a new Minister for Equality and Law Reform the whole issue of equality would finally be tackled. Certainly the move reflected the promise of change and many people welcomed it. However, today we see that the change was superficial.
The Estimates with which we are dealing show that this Department has the smallest budget of any policy making Department. To put that in context, the great struggle towards equality of our citizens is so highly thought of by this Government that it is deemed to deserve an annual budget less than half of that allocated to the Land Registry office. This budget is roughly equivalent to the budget of my local urban district council. It is a budget which states clearly that the commitment to equality in this Government's joint programme is only skin deep. When the new Government was formed Deputy Eithne Fitzgerald stated on a radio programme that the Labour Party would reform Fianna Fáil. Part of the responsibility of this Minister is to reform State Departments which actively discriminate against anyone. If he cannot reform the public sector how can he possibly reform the private sector? The Minister for Equality and Law Reform has already been lobbied on various issues concerning official discrimination. Unfortunately, his reply almost invariably has been that the matter is the responsibility of the Minister of the relevant Department. I have many examples of this.
At present, unmarried couples suffer discrimination under the Social Welfare and taxation code. When I referred this matter to this Minister's Department his response was that he would bring the anomaly to the attention of the relevant Ministers. Women in my constituency of County Wicklow are currently being discriminated against by the Department of Defence. In good faith they availed of the offer presented under the principle of equality in the Defence Forces to join the FCA. However, men who applied to join last January have been accepted into the FCA in east Wicklow while not one woman has been accepted in the same section. They are so frustrated that they are appealing to the President, as chief commander of the Defence Forces, to resolve the matter. This is blatant discrimination, yet all the Minister can do is to bring this anomaly to the attention of the appropriate Minister. I can save him the trouble because I have already done so without any success.
The Department of Social Welfare is currently waging war against married women who are entitled to payments as a result of the Cotter and McDermott case. Instead of the Department granting these women their entitlements as a matter of course they are being forced to pay for legal representation to obtain their rights. At present, solicitors are touting for business by advertising in local newspapers. If I raise this matter with the Minister for Equality and Law Reform I will be told that he will notify the appropriate Minister. If the Minister cannot reform the Government's attitude to equality how will he deal with the discrimination inherent in society as a whole? How will he ensure that women finally achieve equal pay, that travellers are not barred from supermarkets and that the wheelchair user who wishes to have a drink in a pub is not refused on the grounds that he or she is a fire hazard? How can the Minister do all this when the State is reinforcing the Animal Farmprinciple that all animals are equal but some are more equal than others?
I have a specific question in relation to travellers and I am surprised the Minister did not mention them in his speech. When will the task force in relation to travellers be set up? What will be its terms of reference and when does the Minister expect it will report to him? Unless the Department of Equality and Law Reform has resources, both legislative and in regard to staff, it cannot meet this task. I am not critical of the Minister's commitment in this regard. I believe he is committed to the principle of equality but he does not have the resources to make the necessary progress in this area. This ministry should be a fierce watchdog but I fear, at the end of the day, it will be nothing more than a toothless household pet, something that makes one feel good but serves no other real purpose.
An examination of the Estimates reveals that the bulk of the funding will be allocated to the free legal aid board. The total amount has been increased by 11 per cent. That would be welcome news except for the revelations in the breakdown of the figures. We all agree that the legal aid system is overloaded which is characterised by long waiting lists, over-worked solicitors and a patchy geographical base. The Estimates indicate that the amount of money allocated for staffing has been reduced by 3 per cent. That is a 3 per cent reduction without taking inflation into account. I would be interested to have the Minister's views in relation to this reduction. We already have the dodgy record of spending only 80p per person per year on legal aid which is the lowest of all the contries in Europe. It is a record I was hoping we could live without.
I understand from the Minister's speech that he is proposing a scheme of legal aid on a pilot basis using private solicitors. As he has raised the matter it would be right that he gives us some indication of how he expects the system will operate. Were the solicitors currently operating the scheme consulted as to the best way to develop this new scheme? More importantly, how will equality of service be ensured between the private and the public client when any private solicitor is brought into the scheme? Will the cost of funding be in any way to the detriment of the current scheme?
The Minister also intends to bring forward divorce legislation. I welcome that, it is long overdue. It is no great surprise but I am glad that a date has been set for the referendum. I ask for the Minister's assurance on a few points. First, will he bring forward legislation which will keep the solicitors at bay or in clover? If divorce becomes a matter of judicial separation, work that only solicitors can carry out, we will end up with a whole new form of discrimination as regards marriage breakdown. It will mean that the well off can obtain a divorce while the poor cannot. Because of our tardiness in enacting divorce legislation, we now have a golden opportunity to enact legislation that is open and which is based on mediation rather than on courtroom confrontation. I hope that is the case when legislation is introduced. If it is, we need to see the figures when it comes to the Estimate. There is no recognition in these Estimates that the mediation service is limited to its Dublin base and unable to meet its needs at present. For example, a woman living in Tinahely, part of my constituency, who has been battered for years and who feels she should have some chance of sorting out her marital problems with her husband, if necessary, in the best interests of the children has no chance of coming to Dublin for assistance. She may well end up in a totally unsatisfactory situation for herself, her husband and her children.
Would the Minister indicate if he will see unanimity between the two Government parties in relation to the promised divorce referendum? Will Fianna Fáil and the Labour Party in their new partnership have a united campaign for the promised divorce referendum or will other factors intervene at that time when a clear message should be given to the people that there is agreement on this issue and a need for reform? This is an important point on which we need clarification. There is nothing particularly new in the Minister's statement and the various elements of legislation he has proposed are welcomed by most Members of this House. They are essentially modest reform proposals to deal with the most glaring anomalies.
It should be remembered that introducing legislation alone does not necessarily solve the problem of discrimination and inequity and none of us should be under any illusion on that score. We have legislation, in place already in relation to equal pay. It has been in place for some time. It was forced on us by the EC and it is quite elaborate legislation. However, recent CSO figures show that women are not getting equal pay. As of June 1992 the average gross earnings for male industrial workers were £285.04 while the figure for females was £170.28 a gap of £117.76. In June 1985 the figure for the men was £201.52 while the figure for women was £119.28, leaving a gap of just £82.24. In seven years the gap between the weekly male and female industrial earnings has increased by more than £35 a week. There is a clear lesson in that comparison of earnings.
Legislation, while welcome, important and vital for progress is not the solution to this problem. We must consider how society operates and the structuring of the workplace to ensure that the provisions of legislation in relation to women, the disabled or travellers will be implemented to produce the desired results. Since the first Commission on the Status of Women 20 years ago, considerable attention has been drawn to many anomalies but in reality women have suffered a great deal and gained least over those years from the economic policies pursued by successive Governments.
The unemployment crisis has impacted most severely on women. The figure for female unemployment has climbed almost without interruption since 1987 and has resulted in many women living on low income in a dependent state. They are unable to exert the power available to an employed person through a trade union, management organisation, etc. Very often women are excluded from power positions unable to exert pressure to put matters right. A Minister with minimal powers and a limited budget is unlikely to make much difference to the lives of women who are increasingly caught in this poverty trap. There is a challenge for him to prove he can resolve the fundamental inequity suffered by women as a result of having little or no economic independence. It is clear from these Estimates that a radically different approach to tackling inequality must be adopted by all Government Departments, but sadly I can see no evidence of such an approach.
A number of Deputies have indicated their interest in speaking but now I will move to deal with the subheads and proceed to questions and answers.
Are there any questions on subhead A1, Salaries, Wages and Allowances?
Are there any questions on subhead A2, Travel and Subsistence?
Are there any questions on subhead A3, Incidental Expenses?
Are there any questions on subhead A4, Postal and Telecommunications Services?
Do they have to be revised in relation to Telecom's recent announcement or are they unaffected?
We have not considered that point yet. It is an estimated figure for the current year in a new Department. It will be kept under review and we must wait and see how it works out.
In the context of inquiries to the Minister's Department on equality issues which may be raised by men or women, travelling families, disabled people, will he set up a freefone service to enable people with general inquiries about issues that fall within his remit make those inquiries without incurring major expenses?
That is something we will consider.
Are there any questions on subhead A5, Office Machinery and other Office Supplies?
Deputy Harney has already referred to the point I wish to make. As many of our civil servants are now deployed in cities and towns throughout the country there should be much more office space and furniture available in Dublin.
When the new Department was set up staff were drawn from a number of other Departments. A sufficient block of space was not available in any of the other Departments from which staff transferred and the Department had to be set up de novo. A new computer system has to be set up because the computers in the Department of Labour were locked into a system there. Inquiries were made to see if other equipment could be cannibalised but that was not economically viable.
Will the Minister ensure that everybody operating word processors is fully protected in accordance with the relevant EC Directive? I was rather surprised on coming to the Dáil to find it is primarily women who operate those machines. Workers did not have the apparatus they are required to have as a result of the Directive, for example, protective screens in front of VDU screens and special arm rest fittings. Equipment is now available to protect workers' health and it should be part and parcel of any equipment and technology introduced in the future.
Will the Minister indicate who supplied the computer equipment to the Department and how the supplier was selected?
Regarding Deputy McManus's query about the necessary protections that should be provided in the workplace. I understand the Department will be complying with all the safety Directives that apply in respect of computers. I will ask the Personnel Officer of the Department to ensure that all appropriate safety and protection measures are taken, I agree that such measures are important.
Does that include the Dáil?
I cannot speak for the Dáil, I can only speak for my Department. I am informed tenders were sought for the supply of computers, seven or eight tenders were received and the award was made to the Dell company which is the largest manufacturer of computer components in Ireland.
To follow-up on an earlier question from Deputy Collins, on whose shoulders does responsibility for the protection of workers in Leinster House rest?
I presume the Clerk of the Dáil or the Leinster House management would be the responsible authority in that regard. I do not have control over the operation of any of the equipment in Leinster House.
In the event of the Dáil supervisory staff not taking into account the need to protect the operators of this equipment in Leinster House, does the Minister's brief not enable him to give them some help and support?
I do not think my brief would cover that type of matter. It seems to be more a matter for the Department of Health. I would expect and hope that, like any employer, the Clerk of the Dáil would ensure that all the necessary safety measures are put in place.
I know that when they were first introduced these computers caused a number of problems for the people operating them.
Is the Deputy referring to people working in Leinster House?
Yes.
Are there any questions on subhead A6, Office Premises Expenses? Are there any questions on subhead A7, Consultancy Services?
With regard to consultancy services, may I ask the Minister if he has yet engaged any consultancy services? If so, for what purpose? If he has not done so, does he intend to engage any consultancy services and for what purpose? Having regard to the shortage of staff which he clearly suffers from, does the Minister envisage engaging consultants to prepare drafts of proposed reforming legislation in areas which are log-jammed within the system? I expect that such consultants would not be recruited for purely public relations purposes, as there is a separate subhead for publicity. I ask the Minister to expand somewhat on this point.
As Members will see, the amount provided for consultancy services is a nominal £25,000. None of this money has been spent on any particular project as yet. We are considering using some of the money to provide consultancy advice to the Department in connection with the new Commission on the Status of People with Disabilities, which it is proposed to set up, and the Council for the Status of People with Disabilities. In the context of a number of comments made in the opening statements, this will represent a major step forward in providing advice, a forum and services for people with disabilities. All the organisations representing these people are delighted that this has been achieved. The commission will operate somewhat on a par with the method of operation used for the Commission on the Status of Women. It may be necessary to revise consultancy provisions later in the year or next year and provide an increase, depending on the needs which arise from time to time.
On the last occasion I took Question Time in the Dáil, Deputy McDowell very kindly offered his services towards the setting-up of a committee of expert lawyers from the Oireachtas who might be prepared to assist in looking at some of the non-controversial law reform measures which are needed, drafting legislation, etc. I am sure Deputy Shatter will also be prepared to contribute his undoubted expertise in many areas of the law in this regard, if and when such a committee is set up.
Will the Minister listen to his advice?
With regard to subhead A7, Consultancy Services, and subhead A8, Advertising and Publicity, will the Minister put any arrangements in place this year to prepare for the proposed divorce referendum next year? I am speaking here in the context of using consultancy advice, advertising and publicity to get across the real argument involved in this issue. Rather than spending two or three months issuing information before the referendum, information should be given to the public at this stage. Many people are aware that the Committee on Marital Breakdown issued a report, but perhaps we could prepare an information leaflet. We should begin to debate this matter in order to make people aware that what we are talking about is the civil and not the religious aspect of marriage. Has any survey been carried out on whether people who are members of my Church, the Catholic Church, are aware that two distinct ceremonies take place on the day of a wedding, the religious ceremony and the civil ceremony? I often wonder how many people are aware of the fact that there are two distinct ceremonies, that I, as a legislator, have no involvement in the religious aspect of the marriage and that if the civil contract is cancelled it is a person's prerogative to decide whether the religious contract should remain in place.
We should begin to make information on these issues available to the public and open up the debate so that people will be aware of what is involved in the referendum. If we do not do this, I am convinced we will have a repeat of the horrible déb�cle which occurred during the last referendum where the religious aspect of marriage was mixed in with the civil aspect. Will the Minister use both these subheads this year to begin the process of both gathering information from people and giving information to people about our role as legislators. It is vitally important that we get across to people the message that we do not propose to interfere with the religious aspect of marriage and are talking only about the civil contract. People's personal beliefs after that are matters for themselves. This type of debate never took place before the previous referendum. I believe there is an ignorance of the real argument involved and the real discussion which needs to take place. These two subheads could be used very effectively to give the relevant information to the public now rather than leaving it until a month, three weeks or a fortnight before the proposed referendum.
I wish to make two very brief points. The Minister referred to the proposed Commission on the Status of People with Disabilities. Because of time constraints I did not have an opportunity to refer to this commission. I do not think anyone would disagree with the establishment of such a commission. I am well aware that a number of organisations have welcomed its establishment. However, commissions set up by this House are very often — this has happened in regard to many issues — a substitute for political action. The commissions on the disabled and travelling families are a substitute for political action. A number of issues in relation to the disabled do not require a commission to discuss them for two years to tell us about them.
I ask the Minister in the course of his response to explain whether the consultancy service he will use in this area might inform him, if he is not fully informed, about these issues. For example, there does not seem to be anything to stop the Government from making a political decision to make all Government buildings and offices accessible to people who suffer from disability. There is nothing to stop his colleague, the Minister for the Environment, requiring local authorities to make all local authority buildings accessible to people who suffer from disability. There is nothing to stop the Minister for the Environment from introducing amendments to the planning Acts to ensure that where planning permission is given for buildings to which the public should have access, for example, business premises or, as Deputy Harney said, public houses, such buildings are user friendly in terms of people who suffer from disability. There is nothing to stop the equal status legislation and the other legislation which comes from the Minister's Department containing express provision to prohibit discrimination against disabled persons. I hope the Minister will not tell us that none of this can be done pending a report from the commission, but I fear he will.
The Minister referred to Deputy McDowell's kind offer. I am sure that, like me, Deputy McDowell is quite happy to help the Government with its legislative programme. Indeed, I was tempted to do so on two occasions. I would be quite happy to introduce another Private Member's Bill in the House within the next two to three weeks to assist the Government with its legislative programme and I can guarantee it would be a measure of which the Minister and his party would approve although I am not quite sure if all Members of the Fianna Fáil Party would approve of it.
In his response will the Minister indicate, in a less jocose fashion, whether it is the intention of the Labour Party in Government to act as a barrier to all Private Members' Bills, even when the principles coincide with the political views expressed by the party? If not, I will have another Bill prepared rapidly and made available to assist him in his task and to remove some of the burden from his staff who clearly are considerably overworked.
Modesty is not one of the Deputy's better attributes.
Before I call Deputy Harney I should point out that we are dealing with subhead A7 — Consultancy Services — and subhead A8. A number of members indicated that they would like to ask specific questions but we should deal with the subheads first. We can take questions later. Although the Minister referred to the commission, that relates to a different aspect.
I would like to ask the Minister a number of questions. This is the best place in which to ask them. First, what is the reason that grants from the national lottery to voluntary groups and women's organisations are still being administered by the Department of Social Welfare? They come to about £4.7 million this year——
I am sorry to interrupt the Deputy, but I did say that we should stick to the subheads and take general questions later. The Deputy is straying.
They relate to the heading "consultancy services".
I have asked Members to wait and to deal first with the subheads before us.
If you want to rule them out of order, I will have to wait until I have another opportunity but I felt that this was the place in which to ask them. This Minister should receive the bulk of that money——
I am sorry to interrupt the Deputy again but she will have an opportunity to ask when we come to the question and answer session.
I accept your ruling——
I am trying to dispose of the subheads before we reach the general question and answer session.
I agree with the points made by Deputy Barrett in relation to subhead A8 — Advertising and Publicity. It is emphasised in the Programme for Government that the Minister will have responsibility in regard to the introduction of divorce. As we are aware, on the last occasion problems arose and there was misrepresentation and a lack of clarity in regard to the legal position if divorce had been introduced. This matter could not be dealt with in the space of a few weeks or months. I would like to see a larger sum provided in this subhead to allow us clarify the position and to prevent misrepresentation. We should inform people of the implications of the enabling legislation to which the Minister referred so that they will be aware of the Government's intentions. Will the Minister inform us if there is any possibility of an increase in the sum specified in the subhead?
Will the Minister tell us whether funds set aside for consultancy services will be used on services in regard to the task force on travellers, the Commission on the Status of People with Disabilities or on legislation dealing with women's rights?
Will the Minister indicate if some of the budget will be set aside to advertise the existence of the new Department? That is essential so that people will be aware of where the Department is located and its telephone numbers.
I will take the questions in reverse order. In response to the point raised by Deputy Walsh, the initial introductory advertisements outlining the Department's telephone numbers were inserted but I take his point that it may be appropriate to insert some further advertisements containing information on the Department. This will be considered.
Deputy McManus raised the question of the way in which the funds for consultancy services will be used. No firm decisions have been made and we are considering a number of options. None of this money has yet been expended.
Will the Minister say if one of the options being considered relates to the task force on travellers?
It may well be. We may not have to use the funds under that subhead for the purpose because it is stated in the Programme for Government that a small budget will be provided for the task force on travellers. Therefore, I hope the needs of the task force will be met by the Government independently. When we are ready to establish the task force I will prepare an Estimate for the Government which will contain the sum considered necessary for consultancy services. I do not want to use this small allocation for that purpose. As I said, it will have its own separate budget provided by the Programme for Government.
May I seek clarification? I thought we were supposed to consider the Estimates. I have a book in front of me which is entitled "Estimates". Where is the other Estimate to which the Minister has referred which relates to the task force on travellers? If it is not contained in this book where is it and why have we been given limited Estimates to discuss?
The reason the Deputy does not have it is that it has not been prepared. I am referring to the Programme for Government which provides for the setting up of the task force on travellers. It is also stated in the Programme for Government that the task force will have a "small budget" which will enable it to carry out its task. It would be premature at this stage to indicate that this budget may be as the task force has not been established. I will have more to say about this later. When we set up the task force we will estimate what funds may be required to service it, including an allocation for consultancy services. It will be necessary for me to go to the Government to say that we are ready to set up the task force, to outline its terms of reference and to provide an estimate of what may be required to service it, which will be provided by way of a Supplementary Estimate. The reason it has not been included in this book is that we have not yet reached this point.
Does the Minister expect — we are now half way through the year — the task force to be set up in 1993?
It will be set up in 1993 and we are in the process of consulting people about the Member of the Oireachtas who is to chair it.
Deputies Barrett and Costello raised a very important point and I am glad they did so, the procedure to be followed in connection with the referendum on divorce. I have given this matter considerable thought, appreciable expenditure will be needed to get the message across that there is a need for a successful conclusion on this occasion in the divorce referendum. Perhaps it would be premature just now to undertake that process but it will have to be undertaken. Timing is an important factor. It would be better to put much of the necessary preliminary legislation required in place first. In all probability, it would be more appropriate towards the beginning of next year rather than this year to provide for the expenditure to which Deputy Barrett and Deputy Costello referred, but I have an open mind on the matter.
Depending on how progress on the preliminary legislation goes, if we come to the conclusion that it would be as well to make a start on it later this year, again a Supplementary Estimate would be required because the amounts of money provided for under these two subheads would go absolutely nowhere to meet the kind of expenditure that would be required. I should say Government expenditure in connection with the last referendum was £500,000, or something of that order. We would have to draw up estimates and consult with appropriate publicity firms to discuss the type of programme that would be required and its costings. In short, I would say probably that kind of expenditure would arise at the beginning of next year. It is required and I am glad Deputies raised that point.
Deputy Shatter asked whether the establishment of the Commission for the Status of People with Disabilities would be a substitution for action by my Department, and whether there was any question of putting any such matters in abeyance for two years. "Certainly not" is the answers to that question. The legislation already being prepared in my Department, whose provisions will cover people with disabilities and other disadvantaged groups, is proceeding apace. Indeed, I made it quite clear to the representatives of the disabled groups when we met them to discuss the establishment of the commission and council that I was not prepared to defer that legislation in any way until the commission had reported and the council had got under way. They fully accepted that position.
We move on to subhead B — Employment Equality Agency. Are there any questions?
Would the Minister give his views on the early demise of a species known as the male national teacher in the context of equality? At present in the training college there are 13 male students out of 100 this year, whereas last year I think there were nine male students out of 100. It will clearly be seen that there will be an imbalance which will cause major problems, particularly bearing in mind the absence of the father figure from many homes if there is also to be no father figure in schools. Would the Minister say whether he has any plans to discuss with his colleague, the Minister for Education — with whom I have raised this matter — the reinstatement of equality at primary school level, thereby ensuring some balance between male and female teachers?
It appears to me that the Employment Equality Agency is seriously under-funded. If one looks at the subhead for this year — on the basis that it covers mainly salaries and wages and, I presume, covers the deal done under the Programme for Economic and Social Progress— it is my understanding that at present that agency has no research officer, has not had one for some years past, that its funds are so low it is not capable of publishing a newsletter. It is my understanding also that the Northern Ireland Equal Opportunities Commission has much better funding than our Employment Equality Agency whilst the former deals with a much smaller population. What plans has the Minister to provide additional funds to this agency? It would seem to me, at the very minimum, it should have a research officer and, to promulgate the work it is doing, it is of extreme importance that it be able to publish a newsletter on a regular basis as it used do. It would seem that an agency of this nature, hamstrung in this way, encounters very real, substantial difficulties. It was a recommendation of the Second Commission on the Status of Women that the Employment Equality Agency itself become what was described in the commission’s report as an equality commission. The Minister might clarify for us whether there are any proposals in train in that regard.
The final matter I want to raise, which is of relevance to the Employment Equality Agency and to another subhead — is that the work that the Employment Equality Agency does, particularly in regard to women in employment, on occasions can result in cases ending up in the Employment Appeals Tribunal. The legislation in that area — which I think falls within the Minister's remit also — is grossly deficient in that, if an employer who is accused of conduct that has given rise to a case before the Employment Appeals Tribunal, loses the case, the woman who wins her case cannot even require her employer to pay any legal costs she may have incurred. This means that, if awards are made by the Employment Appeals Tribunal, if one is represented before them, one must bear one's own legal costs.
Lest anyone thinks this is special pleading for the legal profession, the reality is that it is very rare indeed for any employer to appear before the Employment Appeals Tribunal without being legally represented. In addition, any woman who appears before them is seriously legally disadvantaged if she is unrepresented. Yet currently, even if successful in their proceedings, they cannot get legal costs, and legal aid is not available to them under the legal aid scheme. That is why I said it comes under another subhead as well. The Minister might comment on what proposals the Government may have to deal with that problem.
I want to raise a few matters I raised at the outset in relation to appeals. For example, there is a commitment contained in the Programme for Government to consider the possibility of extending legal aid to cover employment appeals generally. I want to know whether that will cover appeals to the Employment Equality Agency and, if so, whether the Minister has initiated discussions with the social partners, referred to in the Programme for Government?
I want to ask the Minister also why, in the actual Book of Estimates, there is no indication or breakdown of how this money has been spent, unlike the case of the Civil Legal Aid Board, where it is broken up and one can see clearly the difference between the pay and non-pay elements. This features as one single item. Given that staff and salary increases in the Minister's Department this year will rise by 26 per cent — as he said, mainly as a result of the award under the Programme for Economic and Social Progress— why is it, in the case of the Employment Equality Agency, who are State employees, and who would obviously have to be paid the same increases, there is a decrease in their overall budget in real terms? It is a £2,000 increase which, in real terms, is a substantial decrease.
Bearing in mind that the Minister has said that employment equality will form a major part of his brief, and indicated that, particularly in the legislative area, he will have many proposals to advance, would he say what structure exists or what brief he will be giving the Employment Equality Agency to ensure that his ideas are dove-tailed, or that there is a two-way process, linking the agency and the Minister's views, in the context of legislative reform in the employment equality area?
Deputy Costello questioned what might be the role of the Employment Equality Agency in developments that will be proposed in forthcoming legislation. The position will be that the category of people that will be protected by the amending legislation will be extended beyond the present remit of women; at present, of course, it is confined to women. The first Bill will introduce protection in employment related areas not only in the case of women but in the case of the other categories, that is to say, travellers, people with disability, people with a particular sexual orientation and so on. The question we are discussing is the manner in which the agency will be extended to include that much increased remit. Obviously, its name may well be changed; its composition may be expanded and changed and its resources will have to be examined very carefully because the nature of its work will be very much increased, will be undertaken on a different basis altogether and will necessitate additional resources. The question of whether that same agency would have a role given to it also in non-employment areas is something that would have to be considered, or whether a separate agency should be established to deal with enforcement in non-employment related areas, that is in connection with the supply of goods, services and so on. All of these matters are under active consideration.
Deputy Shatter raised the questions of the inadequacy of the funding of the agency as it is presently constituted. The Estimate was almost finalised by the time I took up office and the Employment Equality Agency was transferred to my Department. We came on the scene too late to have a particular input into formulating the Estimate. We are engaged in discussions with the agency, which is doing an excellent job, on its requirements for the remainder of 1993 and for 1994. Its needs will be considered sympathetically and taken into account when the 1994 Estimates are being prepared.
Deputy Shatter also raised the cost of tribunals. As I understand it, tribunals never award costs. Each party to the tribunal, unless I am mistaken, bears its own costs. In certain cases the Employment Equality Agency provides assistance towards costs, if it is a matter of special interest. It has a provision to do that in its brief. Deputy Harney also raised the point that the agency does not hear cases. It is an advisory and research body and I will support its research needs and will be sympathetic to whatever may be required to help it to carry out its work in an effective manner.
The question of the Legal Aid Board providing legal aid for litigants going before tribunals is, as the Programme for Government stated, being considered. Again, it comes down to the availability of finance. Much needs to be done, as we all agree, in regard to legal aid for family law cases and as soon as we accomplish that we can consider extending its brief to tribunals also.
Deputy Browne (Carlow-Kilkenny)asked if I had discussed with the Minister for Education the question of equality in teacher numbers. I must confess that so far I have not but I have no objection to so doing.
The Minister has painted a rather rosy picture of the future of the Employment Equality Agency. Does he recognise there is a reduction in real terms in what has been allocated to it in the Estimate before us and, in view of the expected rise in inflation of 3 per cent, staff pay increases and the increased telephone charges this will, inevitably, mean cutbacks. Where will the cutbacks be made?
Is it not unfair on the people operating the Legal Aid Board to contemplate extending its brief without allowing for the resources to be put in place to enable it to extend? It seems that on the one hand wonderful policy is being enunciated but the reality is that unless there are resources to match, the system will come under even more pressure and be less able to deal with the demands placed on it.
As it is proposed to expand the remit of the Employment Equality Agency, will the amending legislation deal with matters relating to work that does not fall under the traditional contract of employment? Many women now are proprietary partners in companies or firms of solicitors and aspects of their work impact on their rights to equality. I understand that employment legislation is confined to the contract of employment. If the remit of the agency is to be extended will it now encompass self-employed women and how equality legislation impacts on them. We are signatories to an EC Directive, which was due to be implemented last year and deals with equality and the activities of the self-employed. Will the Minister consider asking the Employment Equality Agency to champion the rights of women who by virtue of improved equality opportunities have moved from the traditional contract of employment into different spheres?
Does the Minister see a role for himself in ensuring that the 3 per cent quota of disabled people employed in Government services is met? I am not too happy that the 3 per cent quota is being implemented. Is there any evidence to suggest that this is the case? Has he any proposals to ensure this is properly implemented? It would be meritorious to increase this percentage as it seems inadequate given the number of those with a disability who are seeking employment in the public sector. Does the Minister see merit in my suggestion?
We are not going to have true equality in employment unless the parties to a dispute before the tribunal are in an equal position. The Minister may not be familiar with the Employment Appeals Tribunal and if he is not, I would ask him to look at how it works in practice. At present this inequality applies to both men and women because issues relating to men in employment come before the Employment Appeals Tribunal as frequently as issues relating to women. When there is a hearing before the Employment Appeals Tribunal, the employer, which may be a very large company, has very large resources at its disposal and may use them in the presentation of the case by employing substantial legal expertise, which is not always confined to solicitors and may include members of the Bar as well as solicitors. The man or woman who may appear before the tribunal faced with that panoply of legal counsel is at a very major disadvantage.
Hearings before the Employment Appeals Tribunal are not always completed within a couple of hours and may run for two or three days when the matter is very contentious. The ordinary person who may be fighting over a job, which greatly impacts on his or her future cannot afford the legal expertise that a big company may be able to pay for and write off as a tax deduction or a loss against their profits of that year. Employees generally are not in an equal position to the employer in cases that come before the Employment Appeals Tribunal. This is a very serious issue and is as serious as any issue that needs to be addressed in the family law area in the context of legal aid. At present there is no free help available to people coming before the Employment Appeals Tribunal. With 300,000 people unemployed, to be treated with dignity in ones employment can have an impact not just on the employee but on his or her entire family, on the standard of living and future of his or her children. For too long this has been ignored. If the Minister is not familiar with it I ask him to look seriously into it in the context of any plans to expand the use of the legal aid scheme.
Will the Minister say how many people are employed by the Employment Equality Agency?
There are 12 people employed by the agency at present. I certainly agree with Deputy Shatter that there are occasions when it would be desirable to make available legal representation to litigants at the Employment Appeals Tribunal but I do not agree that the requirements are as great or as widespread as in the family law area. Most of the representation at the Employment Appeals Tribunal is not made by lawyers; the more usual procedure is that the personnel director or personnel officers of the employers conduct those cases and trade union representatives represent the employed person. However, on many occasions solicitors, barristers and possibly senior counsel are in attendance. By and large representation is made by employer directors or personnel officers and trade union representatives who fulfil the task extremely well, probably better than would the average solicitors because they have much wider knowledge of the issues involved in the disputes that come before the tribunal. I agree that there is a number of cases where none of those considerations applies and legal assistance would be desirable. For that reason the Programme for Government states that this issue is to be examined in the context of budgetary availability in the period ahead. This question arises not only in relation to employment appeals but also in the case of social welfare appeals. Legal representation in these cases may be helpful also.
Deputy Fitzgerald raised the question as to whether there are statistics available as to the take-up of employment in the Government service by people with a disability. There are statistics available which show that the minimum 3 per cent level has not been taken up. The response is different in various Departments; in some Departments the response has been poor while others have made a greater effort to employ people with a disability. The old Department of Labour was perhaps the best of all Departments in this regard, although they did not achieve the 3 per cent level. Since the setting up of my Department we have been in constant communication with the various Departments about this matter, pointing out the shortfall and asking what they propose to do about it. We refer them to the excellent service provided by the NRB who have on computer names of people with disabilities who are available for various positions. We urge the Departments to avail of the service of the NRB and we will monitor progress in this regard. Many Departments may say — their statements would be factually based — that the ban on employment in the public service has been a major factor in not achieving the 3 per cent level. This level should not be increased yet. We must first work towards achieving it and thereafter the position can be reviewed.
I am not clear as to the thrust of Deputy O'Donnell's question. I do not think the Employment Equality Agency confines itself strictly to the contract of employment. Working partners, many of whom are employees, come within the ambit of the agency. When I meet these people in the next couple of weeks I will review that aspect of their work and get further information on it.
Deputy McManus raised the question of the resources of the Employment Equality Agency and the Legal Aid Board. Nobody can deny that the resources of the Legal Aid Board are inadequate at present to provide a reasonable service. The waiting lists speak for themselves. This matter is of major concern to me and I will address it in the appropriate way at the appropriate time.
In relation to the 3 per cent reduction in the pay element of the allocation, will the Minister say how many people are employed by the Legal Aid Board, whether they will receive pay increases this year and, if so, what will be the result of such an increase, together with the 3 per cent reduction in allocation, in terms of a reduction in service?
First I welcome the Minister to this committee. I also welcome his appointment as Minister. All Deputies and Senators in the Labour Party are very pleased at his promotion. He has a good record of hard work not only in his constituency but also in this House. It would be very churlish of us not to welcome his appointment to this historic Ministry and to wish him well. He has the full support of this committee in his work. I agree with other speakers that the budget of this Department should be increased for the future. I disagree with Deputy Shatter on the need for legal representation at the Employment Appeals Tribunal and the Employment Equality Agency. As somebody who has taken more cases to the Employment Appeals Tribunal than anybody in the country I speak from experience on this matter. There is no reason that much of the work cannot be done by trade union officers, public representatives, community information personnel and residents' groups. If these people were given some training in the matter they would be able to do a good job. It was never intended to employ barristers and solicitors in this area.
I would not be in favour of the legal profession making a goldmine as a result of divorce legislation. That would be totally against my principles and those of the Labour Party. I hope that legislation would not result in circumstances such as arose with the Beef Tribunal where people received £1,800 for a day's work. That is about ten times more than the average worker receives per week. There must be reality in this matter. Even though the leader of my party is a barrister and there are other barristers and solicitors in the party, as chairman of the party I do not favour the spending of large amounts of money on legal expenses. The budget is small enough and we should work within that budget — perhaps it could be increased for next year.
There is no point in my putting forward pernickety points to obstruct the Minister in his work. We are here to assist him and to achieve consensus and progress in these areas. Even though I agree that more money is necessary, money alone will not solve the problem. A sum of £40 million was sought for the prevention of child abuse, but that problem will not necessarily be solved by spending £40 million. Social attitudes must be changed. There is no reason to adopt the attitude taken by Deputy Barrett this morning to the question of marriage. In fact people marry each other and the registrar is the person who conducts the ceremony. That is the distinction that should be made rather than of bickering and squabbling as on the last occasion. So far as my party is concerned divorce is a matter of civil and human rights. That is our policy, it will remain so and we will not be led astray this time by any emotional attempts to stampede people. On the last occasion people talked about succession rights. This time I hope the matter will be dealt with in a realistic fashion and that people will examine the issues before them.
The fact that we do not have divorce in Ireland has not prevented the breakdown of marriages. Because of the number of marriages breaking down we have to treat this issue in a caring and compassionate way. The Minister for Equality and Law Reform, Deputy Taylor, has a practical attitude to this problem. He will not be dissuaded from his task. I am pleased to support Deputy McManus in saying we will have this referendum next year. Let us hope that all parties will support the Minister in his endeavours and that we can put an end to the propaganda, the emotionalism and dishonesty on the last occasion when people were blackmailed to vote in a certain way. We must have a rational and calm campaign.
I should like to ask one question. One aspect of the Family Home Protection Act, 1976, an enlightened piece of legislation brought before this House to protect deserted wives, has had the opposite effect. When women seek to buy a local authority house on a tenant purchase basis in a case where the husband has left the house for 20 years but had signed his name as joint tenant, she cannot purchase that house if the husband has lived in it even for one day. Even though he left 20 years ago, during which time she has paid her rent on a weekly basis, she cannot buy it because he was once a cotenant. That lady has to go through a convoluted and expensive process in inserting advertisements in the news-papers, engaging solicitors and so on to buy a house in that situation. That is wrong. The Bill is having the opposite effect of what was intended. If the Minister can reverse that position and allow such a person to purchase her house under the provisions of this Act, it would be a good day's work.
Before I call Deputy Foley I would remind members that we are still dealing with subheads and the time remaining for general questions is limited. We will be concluding at 1.30 p.m. and there will be a brief summing up by the main spokesmen.
I endorse the sentiments expressed by Deputy Kemmy in congratulating the Minister and I wish him well in his new portfolio of Equality and Law Reform. I have no doubt he will prove successful. I understand the Legal Aid Board is entirely male. Has the Minister plans to change the constitution of that board by extending its membership in order to allow women representation in the board?
Obviously, the whole question of civil legal aid is one of major concern and has taken up approximately half the Minister's budget. I welcome the fact that the Minister sought to secure a further £100,000 on top of the previous increase. Obviously the reforms being introduced in the Judicial Separation and Family Law Reform Act, 1989, have resulted in a substantial number of extra cases coming before the courts. We will have to respond by means of providing sufficient funding to try to eliminate the waiting lists. We must be very careful of the direction in which our law reform proceeds to ensure we do not create a burden of financial responsibilities. That is why the whole question of legal costs must be addressed in all future legislation.
Reference was made earlier to the Employment Appeals Tribunal, an area in which I have some experience. Work is done largely by personnel in the business side and by the trade union representative representing the claimant. We should look towards eliminating, so far as is possible, the actual employment of lawyers in this area. In relation to conciliation and mediation in the context of divorce we do not want an adversarial system, which our legal system is. We have to think in terms of legislative proposals that avoid the highly expensive adversarial system and ensure that the people for whom we provide the legislative services have the necessary financial back-up services. I would ask the Minister to comment on that and to bear it in mind in his legislative proposals.
I would again appeal for brevity because I want to get in as many members as possible before we complete our business.
Earlier this morning I was intrigued by a suggestion which the Minister said had come from one of his colleagues in the Labour Party, Deputy Derek McDowell, regarding the setting up of a committee of those members of the Oireachtas who are in the legal profession to study reform. I was disappointed at the reaction of Deputy Shatter to it. I would encourage him to go ahead and form such a committee. We had the unfortunate experience before when the Fine Gael Party did not want to participate in a committee from which something constructive might emanate. The public have learned to expect Fine Gael in opposition to be destructive rather than constructive. I would urge the Minister to form this committee. There may well be other members of the Fine Gael Party who would be interested in adopting a constructive approach to the reform to which the Minister has referred.
I admit to being somewhat confused. Are we dealing with subhead B or subhead C.1?
We are dealing with Subhead C.1. Unfortunately members have strayed somewhat. I want to be flexible and to assist members. I am in your hands. The co-operation of members would result in the business being more streamlined.
What is the Minister's attitude and that of the Legal Aid Board to the means test applied to applicants? In some cases of marital breakdown people in the PAYE system expect to obtain legal aid and do not understand the application of the means test. Can the Minister utilise his Department to publicise exactly what facilities are available to those seeking legal aid and if there are limitations on means?
Members have indicated subheads and I appeal to them to keep with the subhead in their own interest. I want to allow everybody an opportunity to contribute.
At the outset I join with others in warmly congratulating the Minister on his appointment. Obviously I would prefer if it was a Fianna Fáil Minister but if I were to choose any other politician there is nobody who would be more suited than the present occupant. He is a person of the highest integrity and is held in high esteem not only in the House but nationally.
I would sound a note of caution in relation to this subhead. Deputies Costello and Kemmy said they did not want an adversarial system in relation to divorce. While that is an admirable sentiment the truth is that divorce throughout the world over several generations is, of its nature, adversarial and it will be no different here. That is the reality of the situation and we must not bury our heads in the sand. Assuming the divorce referendum will be passed next year — one cannot be certain of that — is it the Minister's intention to go to Government and seek a considerable increase in his Department's allocation to the Legal Aid Board? If the divorce referendum is passed, the legislation which follows will, of necessity, apply to everybody, and there are many who will not be in a position to engage in the adversarial system which will automatically follow. Let us be realistic and not bury our heads in the sand; it will cost a vast amount of money to enable people who do not have sufficient funds to go to court to seek a divorce, particularly in complicated cases and where property is involved. Is it the Minister's intention, in anticipation of the possibility of the referendum being passed next year, to seek enough funding from the Exchequer to allocate the necessary resources to the Legal Aid Board to enable people who cannot afford their own legal advice to take proceedings for a divorce?
In view of Deputy Briscoe's intervention, as Leader of the Fine Gael group I want to make a statement. As members of the Fine Gael Party, we will ensure that these committees work. On the other hand, they will not be "love-ins". The Minister is unfortunate to be here as Minister for Equality and Law Reform two days after the fiasco in the Dáil where people admitted that they were embarrassed about voting against a Bill. Deputy Shatter was perfectly in order in questioning the sincerity of this Government. It is strange for a man with the political mileage of Deputy Brian Lenihan to make a song and dance about it; he made his name from being as politically acute and active as Deputy Shatter. It is very much in order to question what is going on, and I pay tribute to all the spokespersons today who played a leading role in making this new committee and this new Department relevant and asking very important questions. We will have to get away from the belief that if members of Fine Gael raise questions they are up to some mischief; we should grow up.
I want to ask a number of questions about the Legal Aid Board. In relation to the Estimates, what is the non-Exchequer sum? I see it has decreased by 39 per cent in the Book of Estimates. Perhaps the Minister can clarify that for me.
The Minister said earlier that, in giving people legal aid, priority must be given to family law cases. Nobody would disagree with that. However, the Programme for Government commits the Government to extending legal aid to employment appeals. It goes further to say that discussion will take place with the social partners in that regard. Can the Minister state such discussions have taken place? Earlier on the Minister seemed to think I was worried about employment appeals before the Employment Equality Agency. I know the Employment Equality Agency do not hear appeals, that is the function of the Employment Appeals Board. It is not fair to say that people can be represented in all cases by trade union officials as many people are not unionised.
I know of a recent case where a young girl working in the advertising field was dismissed. She had thought long and hard before she agreed to take a case. She then discovered her employer would be represented by what is regarded as the leading senior counsel in this field and she had to recruit the services of a lawyer. Just before the hearing she got frightened of the potential cost and the fact that she could end up not just without a job but having to pay legal costs. She settled out of court for what most people would regard as a very small sum. Deputy Carey wondered about eligibility for legal aid; the means are so low, £6,000 per annum, that it is a disgrace. We all know that nobody with £7,000 or £8,000 per annum can take legal action and that we cannot have miracles overnight. I assure the Minister that I will give him every support, as I did on the last occasion. I would like to think we could have genuine all-party support for this, but there is no point in having a service unless people have access to it. As things stand people do not have access. As I said earlier, the tenants of Mespil Estate could not take a case under our present legal aid scheme because landlord and tenancy issues are not covered.
The new probate tax in the Finance Bill will be a further disincentive to transactions involving property valued over £10,000. That will add more costs when marriages are breaking up and property is being divided. We must be realistic. The present scheme is inadequate on the question of means and what it covers. As I said earlier, it takes a year to get an appointment in Tallaght. Effectively, there is no legal aid in many parts of the country.
Will the Minister state the composition of the Legal Aid Board, the number of people on it including the number of women? Obviously when the legal aid scheme is established on a statutory basis there will be a new board. When may we expect that? The Minister did not answer that earlier.
In relation to comments by Government Deputies, our job here is not to support the Minister but to question legislation, particularly when the Government has such a large majority. I support the Minister, for whom I have a high regard. I work well with him in his constituency and he knows, to quote Deputy Kemmy, that I am a fair player. However, this Government do not seem to want to answer questions on anything — I exclude this Minister. We saw an example of this in the Dáil yesterday. It is our job and our duty, particularly when Government has such a huge majority, to ask questions. If we had been able to ask more questions and get proper answers, the beef tribunal would not have been needed. I do not think Government Deputies should be so sensitive. Many of them are experienced politicians. The fact that people ask questions does not mean they are cynical or that they should be ridiculed. That is a disgrace and unfair. We can work very well together if everybody is motivated by the same spirit in regard to what we are supposed to be doing.
I will not repeat what Deputy Harney said and I agree with all her comments. Deputy Briscoe and I are on good terms personally but I find it very difficult to take his contribution today seriously when he spoke about being constructive on the Opposition benches. How can one be more constructive than by bringing forward legislation which is not politically contentious? There are two ways in which an Opposition Deputy can act; he can be critical of a Minister and kick the Government around every time it slips on a banana skin, or he can engage in positive politics and bring forward reforming proposals that are not politically designed to upset anybody but to meet a need.
On a point of order——
I am responding——
What has this to do with the subhead?
Why is it that whenever I get on my feet——
Deputy Fitzgerald, resume your seat.
I am responding to what was said.
Obviously this is rail-roading by Deputy Shatter. If this is the kind of line he wishes to pursue I will have no part in it.
Please refrain from interrupting the Chair, Deputies. If Deputy Shatter has a specific question I would like him to direct it to the Minister because we are coming to the concluding stages of the debate.
I have been the butt of remarks; I am entitled to respond.
Deputy O'Donoghue referred to the divorce issue. Like Deputy Harney, I assure the Minister that the Fine Gael Party will not try to do to him on this issue what the Fianna Fáil Party did last time. We will not, to use Deputy Briscoe's words, try to exploit an issue and engage in destructive politics. The Minister does not have to worry about the knife in the back from the Opposition side of the House on this issue. It is the Fianna Fáil Deputies with whom he has gone into Government in partnership that he should watch very carefully.
To come back to the legal aid Estimate with which we are supposed to be dealing, in reply to a Dáil Question on 28 April the Minister listed the current position in regard to the various law centres. He said that the current waiting times for an initial appointment with solicitors in relation to applications is as follows: Clondalkin, five months; Finglas, seven months; Gardiner Street, 12 months; Ormond Quay, five months; Tallaght, 12 months; Athlone, 12 months; Castlebar, six months; Cork North, nine months; Cork South, eight months; Dundalk, three months; Galway, three months; Letterkenny, nine months; Limerick, eight months; Sligo, six months; Tralee, three months and Waterford, six months. Bearing in mind that this year's Estimate is not adequate and will not allow any of the backlog to be addressed, can the Minister give the Committee an assurance that he will get a sufficient sum in the Estimate for 1994 to deal with the backlog? When this Estimate is discussed next year will the Minister be able to tell us that within two to three weeks at most of someone seeking an appointment with any law centre it will be granted to him or her? Will he assure us that emergency cases will be dealt with immediately? I understand from the Minister's reply that while law centres currently operate a priority system, some of them cannot even cope with emergencies.
This Committee at its first meeting last week discussed the Defence Estimates and had a constructive debate. All participants were prepared to put party politics aside and we worked well as a unit. I would not like to see a repetition of what happened today and I hope we can work constructively together at future meetings.
The Law Reform Commission report on defamation was published in 1991 and I should like to know if the Minister intends implementing its proposals and how soon can we expect a response in that regard?
I welcome the Minister's statement that the forthcoming referendum should avoid the divisiveness that characterised the previous referendum. He has gone a long way towards achieving that by introducing legislative proposals that will underpin the divorce referendum. Those proposals include the enforcement of maintenance orders, family home provisions and legislation to deal with nullity. I support Deputy Shatter's view regarding family courts. Will the Minister include a provision for family courts in the legislation he has promised to introduce prior to the referendum? Does he envisage that the conciliation service, and other ancillary back-up facilities and services, will be embodied as part of a family courts system incorporated in that legislation? The existing conciliation services could be extended to include the specialist back-up service that is essential to achieve the maximum degree of mediation, conciliation and settlement outside an actual court decision on a matter.
The White Paper on Marital Breakdown gave five possible approaches to a constitutional amendment and this matter requires serious consideration. The fourth option deals with entitlement to a divorce where a marriage has irretrievably broken down. Provision is made for the spouse and children where a judicial separation has taken place two years prior. That is the most practical of the five options. Will the Minister give an indication as to the progress made in regard to using those five options as the basis for a divorce amendment?
I take it that most of the funding by way of grant-aid to law centres comes from the Department of Justice? The Minister has provided £40,000 by way of grant-aid to free legal aid centres. Is that the total amount or are there other forms of funding from the Department of Justice? Is the Minister aware of the difficulties being experienced by Coolock Community Law Centre? That centre provides free legal advice for people living in a huge disadvantaged catchment area and I am sure many Deputies present would agree with that. Just as there are waiting lists for access to the free legal advice centres around the country, I can assure the Minister there are also waiting lists at Coolock Community Law Centre and the people who go there are at the end of the list and cannot get access. There has been ongoing difficulty about funding for that centre and for some reason the Department of Justice — I am not casting any aspersions on the Minister's Department — did not consider it appropriate to fund the Coolock Community Law Centre on a permanent basis. Invariably it was left to the miscellaneous grants section of the Department of Social Welfare. In view of the difficulties being experienced, the major contribution it makes and the important social role it plays in a vast disadvantaged community, does the Minister consider it appropriate that his Department should examine it on the basis of equality of opportunity for access to free legal aid services? Will he indicate his proposals for the future of that centre?
I raised the question of funding for free legal aid centres in the Dáil some months ago and received a response from the Minister. The Minister is committed to this area, not only since he assumed office. He is on record as supporting such centres. The Coolock centre has experienced grave difficulties and received inadequate funding on an ad hoc basis from various Departments. Because of the Minister’s commitment to such law centres, does he propose to provide adequate and appropriate funding for each centre from one source rather than from various Departments as is the case at present? The Coolock Community Law Centre is unable to take on cases at present, its doors are closed for new cases. Will the Minister comment on that also?
We have not dealt with the whole agenda, but we will now take the concluding statement. I thank the Members for their contributions. It was a constructive meeting although there was disagreement on some matters, but that is what such meetings should be all about. I assure all Members that I will play fair with all sides and ensure that this will be a constructive meeting. I suggest that the Minister might submit written replies to questions that were not dealt with today. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I thank the members for their contributions. I appreciate the remarks of Deputies O'Donoghue and Foley.
I am sorry to interrupt the Minister, but he is just responding to the questions.
I understand that. Deputies Fitzgerald and Callely raised the question of Coolock Community Law Centre. It certainly would make sense that grants should not be made available on an ad hoc basis to centres of that nature; they should be channelled through one Department. FLAC will receive a grant of £40,000 this year again. I do not believe I received a communication or a request from the Coolock Community Law Centre. If they communicate with me, their application will be considered for next year. The bulk of whatever resources are available must be directed at the Legal Aid Board which is organised on a national basis. The overwhelming bulk of resources must be directed to them. There is a role for the Coolock law centre as there is for FLAC. I value the remarkable work they both have done over many years. They made headway in many areas. They deserve the gratitude of all of us for the work they have done.
Deputies Shatter and O'Donoghue raised the question of resources in general for the Legal Aid Board at present and in the event of the introduction of divorce. I cannot say at this time what the budgetary position will be in 1994, 1995, 1996 and so on. I will endeavour to secure the maximum available resources for the Legal Aid Board to enable them to carry out their mandate as efficiently as possible in each budgetary year. It will be a high priority with me. I am unhappy with the present situation which has developed.
Deputy O'Donoghue referred to matters involving property, the family home, etc. I would point out to him that those considerations already apply, even in the absence of divorce, under Deputy Shatter's Judicial Separation Bill. Those questions are already very much an issue and in context before divorce is introduced at all.
Deputy Lenihan raised the question about the mediation service. Deputy O'Donoghue spoke also about the adversarial nature of the system. We all agree that the adversarial aspects of family law litigation are best avoided as far as possible. The role of mediation in that area is crucial. Divorce legislation would put the matter on a different basis. Nobody would suggest we should have divorce by agreement. We can have separation by agreement but not divorce by agreement. There will always have to be at least some court hearing in divorce procedures. Perhaps it could be only in the case of formal issues. If all the property issues and issues regarding children, custody, maintenance and so on were resolved in advance, that would leave only the formal aspects to be settled. Obviously that would represent a major saving.
Deputy Lenihan raised the point about the precise aspects of divorce legislation being published in advance of the referendum. People should know which, if any, of the options in the White Paper would be taken. As I said at the outset, people will have to know exactly what regime of divorce they will be voting for, if they agree to give the Oireachtas that power. The options must be well known in advance of the referendum. I take note of the particular option favoured by the Deputy, option No. 4, but it is too early to say at this stage that I have made my mind up about any particular option. One has to strike a balance in this regard. It should not be too difficult but it should not be too easy either. We will have to discuss the alternatives and reach a reasonable compromise on that issue. That aspect will be very important and for that reason it will require careful consideration. I would appreciate comments and suggestions from any Deputy, Senator or, indeed, outside organisation who wishes to make representations on that issue.
The area of family courts is important. The actual control of the courts and the setting up of the court procedures is a matter for the Minister for Justice. I am not hiving off the issue, I will be in consultation with the Minister to see what progress can be made on it. I am aware that in Dublin the position is not too bad although I understand the lists tend to become cluttered. The situation is different in many areas outside Dublin. I am unhappy with the position in many of the Circuit Courts outside the Dublin area. New arrangements for the hearing of family law cases will have to be devised.
Deputy Power raised the point about the Law Reform Commission's report on defamation. I have looked at that and I have met a grouping from the newspapers who are concerned to have legislation introduced in this area. I discussed the matter with them but I cannot give a particular timescale on when legislation might be introduced to deal with that aspect. It is a matter for consideration and hopefully will be progressed as quickly as possible.
I agree with Deputy Harney that there are many people who are not unionised and who wish to bring cases or have cases before the Employment Appeals Tribunal. Their position has to be protected. Discussions on the issue have not yet taken place between the social partners. I also take the point made by Deputy Kemmy that it is unnecessary in most cases that go before the Employment Appeals Tribunal that the representation be by a lawyer of necessity and that many other people, particularly trade unionists, carry out that task in a skilled and dedicated way. Perhaps a procedure could be implemented to involve them in looking after the interests of people who are not unionised. Where that is not possible legal representation is an option.
The question of the composition of the Legal Aid Board was raised by Deputy Foley and Deputy Harney. The board was appointed towards the end of last year by the then Minister for Justice. It is correct to say there is no woman member on that board. One of the board members will be resigning shortly, the nominee of the Department of Justice. A vacancy will arise that will be filled by a nominee from my Department.
A female nominee, I hope. There is no woman on the board at the moment and the Minister has an opportunity to make such an appointment.
The question of appointing additional members to the existing board was raised by Deputy Shatter. I am still considering that matter. I am rather reluctant to do this because of the cost factor involved. The Legal Aid Board is so strapped for cash at present that I am reluctant to deduct additional moneys from its already stretched resources which would be necessary in order to have additional members. That is my one reservation in this regard. I look forward to the time we can put the Legal Aid Board on a statutory basis which would enable the appointment of a completely new board. At that time, the appropriate Government guidelines will be adhered to strictly.
Deputy Harney asked about the non-Exchequer sums for the Legal Aid Board. The non-Exchequer receipts of £75,000 arose from two sources, the contributions from clients towards fees and court awards of costs. The actual publication of the guidelines and means testing was raised by Deputy Currie. I will take up with the Legal Aid Board the question of publicising the guidelines. They are revised from time to time. Perhaps the time is coming, in the context of increased resources, to have those guidelines more generously constituted.
Deputy Harney asked about the number of people working in the Legal Aid Board. The total number of people employed there, as at 19 March, is 97. I do not have a breakdown of the number of men and women employed. If the Deputy requires that information we can get it. Deputy McManus referred to the drop in the category of one of the resources.
I inquired as to the number employed, the loss involved because of increases in wages, the reduction of 3 per cent in the allocation for pay and its impact on man hours for the Legal Aid Board services.
I am told it is attributable to one staff member less on the administrative side. A reduction in overtime is the explanation for that 3 per cent drop. That is the information available to me now; it would require some research to calculate the number of man hours or woman hours being lost. We can provide the Deputy with further information on this if she so wishes.
I would be interested to know its impact on the reduction in service.
From that point of view there is no reduction on the solicitors' side, the reduction is on the administration side.
Its back up facilities will be reduced.
There is a reduction of one in the administrative staff and a reduction in overtime.
May we have concluding statements now?
I understand we have a suggested timetable and within that timetable the Committee may alter those times. If a Committee is scheduled to finish at 1.30 p.m. changes can be made within that time. However, the Committee should not sit after 1.30 p.m. as people may have to attend other meetings or they may have trains and buses to catch. I would ask the Chairman if he would now conclude the proceedings? Perhaps the spokesman for the other side would find this acceptable as the Chairman has been very generous in allowing speakers exceed their time limit.
It is a suggested timetable. People are entitled to respond.
I did not think the time was open-ended.
I requested members be brief in their contributions in order to get through the business. I call the spokesperson for Fine Gael to conclude. Deputy Shatter has five minutes.
If Deputy Briscoe had not intervened perhaps we might have concluded now. We have had a good innings today. We have gone through all the issues we could possibly address. I thank the Minister for his various responses. There are one or two issues he has not responded to but, perhaps, we will come back to them on another occasion. I do not want to delay the committee unduly and there is no point in repeating earlier remarks. If I made life a little difficult for the Minister today it is because I regard it as my public duty to play the role of an Opposition spokesperson as effectively as the Minister sought to play a similar role not so long ago. We wish the Minister well in his aspiration to secure additional funding for the legal aid service and he has the support of Opposition Deputies in that regard. I hope I am not being impertinent by speaking on behalf of all Opposition Deputies. I wish him well with his legislative programme. My only concern is that he lacks the resources to bring forward as rapidly as may be necessary. He can be assured that in so far as the legislative programme will introduce constructive and badly needed social reform he will have the support of the Fine Gael Party, save in cases where it considers such proposals are deficient, where it will seek to amend and improve them.
A concluding statement from Ms. O'Donnell.
On behalf of my party I would like to thank the Minister for a very enjoyable meeting today. I thank the Chairman also for facilitating such a wide ranging debate and being flexible with the time, especially in respect of the Opposition Deputies.
Nobody was happier than I when the Department of Equality and Law Reform was set up. I know the Minister will do what he can in regard to that Department. However, it is an insult that the Department's budget is so low. In the case of equality matters it is usual that resources are scarce. When attention is given to equality matters it is given with very little resources. It is up to the Minister to complain, beg for more, slam doors and be passionate about the fact that his Department has the lowest budget of any of the policy-making Departments in the Government. The Minister has a major task ahead of him, both in his civil legislation reform and in the role he has in championing the constitutional rights of half of the population, women of this State.
The report of the Commission on the Status of Women is a good agenda to follow, but in many respects it is like looking into a bush. There are so many recommendations for the Minister's Department to implement that I imagine his staff have their heads in their hands wondering where they will start with the 200-plus recommendations.
If the Minister was to ask the various groups around this country representing women's rights what should be top of the agenda, they would say child care. That should also be on the Minister for Health's agenda. Women are used to choosing between conflicting demands and they would say child care is the top priority. Regulation and the support needed to remove the primary responsibility of child care from women would go a long way towards providing equality for women. Even if women achieve equality in professions, education and politics the unfinished business will always be child care. I appeal to the Minister to address this issue.
The Minister gave a commitment today to secure more money for legal aid. The basic premise of equality is access to the courts.
I regret we have not had ample opportunity to discuss the problem regarding travellers but I am sure it will come up again. It is surprising that we will have to wait for a supplementary Estimate to deal with the travellers' issue given that a major part of the Minister's brief deals with travellers and the establishment of a national task force has not even been written into the agenda by way of budgetary implication.
The Minister could take a leading role in spearheading change in relation to equality for the secretaries and female staff of this House. That is long overdue. Our secretaries have no security of tenure and that should be addressed. It would be one small improvement in regard to equality within this House. We look forward to working with him. We will not have — as somebody else said — a "love in" with the Minister, but we will bring the best out of him.
I thank the Minister for answering our questions. This matter is long on aspiration but short on commitment of funds. We all appreciate the Minister's difficulties in this regard but I hope he also appreciates the difficulties people outside this House have in relation to equality. They are beginning to suspect that only the language has changed and that in reality there is no essential difference between what this Government is planning to do and what the previous Government intended to do. This is not only a matter of money.
Last night the Protection of Refugees Bill provided an opportunity for change, to indicate that a civil right could be extended to unfortunate people who come here seeking basic refuge. That opportunity was not taken up. The Minister's party was pivotal in ensuring that the bolt would be shot on any chance of compassion winning out over conformity. That needs to be noted. I am glad Deputy Shatter avoided the trap that was presented to him. It would not be good for this Minister or any other Minister to have a legal advisory team on legislation. The Oireachtas is far too top heavy with professions. There is far too great a presence of the legal profession, teachers and doctors and we need to get away from that. Rather than encouraging this, we should be trying to get away from it. If the Minister wants to set up a committee, I recommend that he fill it with the women who make up 75 per cent of the unfortunate people who have to wait in line to receive help from the Legal Aid Board. The Minister would learn much more about legislation, and how it should operate, from those people, the experts, than from the legal brains in the House.
In addition to resources, we need to be given a clear message by the Government instead of the babble of different voices we have heard up to now. Depending on to whom one speaks in the Government parties, one will get a different story and a different line. We need leadership from the Government, which we are not getting at present. We need to know that when the going gets rough in the debate on the divorce referendum the Government will speak as one — that divorce is a civil right which must be granted quickly. We need to know that the Government is truly committed to ensuring justice for travellers. This message must be made clear by Government Deputies and Fianna Fáil and Labour councillors throughout the country. We also need to know that a woman will be treated as an equal by Government Departments which is not the case at present. It is not good enough for the Minister to say that this is the responsibility of someone else. If we want to achieve equality it has to be the responsibility of the Minister for Equality and Law Reform. It is time that problem was sorted out.
In regard to the free legal aid service, the Minister should remember that the Estimates are on the table, they are outrageous in terms of the free Legal Aid Board, and inadequate in terms of dealing with the existing need. The same applies to FLAC, which has struggled over the years to make up the shortfall in this area. The Minister's main priority should be the allocation of more funding to this area. Some Deputies complained about the queues outside their free legal aid centres. I wish we had the same problem in Wicklow, we do not have a free legal aid centre. As he has responsibility for equality and law reform, the Minister might like to consider an entirely new category of people, the geographically challenged person who does not receive many of the services available to city dwellers. I am speaking as a rural Deputy who is conscious of the continuous inequity which exists, not just for women, the disabled and travellers but for people who live outside suburban areas who cannot avail of basic medical, legal and educational facilities available in an urban setting.
Having regard to our discussion this morning, I regard the Minister as a fair man — he answered our questions as best he could. However, unless he can match the fine words with funds he should be very cautious about saying anything. The worst thing that could happen in the long term is that people would be given false hope which has no real substance.
Before I call on the Minister to make his concluding statement, I too, congratulate him. Having regard to his sincerity and commitment to the very important issue of law reform, I have no doubt that the Minister will be successful in his endeavours in this area. I look forward to working with him during the coming year.
I thank all the Members of the Committee and the Chairman for a very constructive debate on the issues relating to my Department. Perhaps some Deputies were a little unfair in saying that this Government had not acted differently from previous Governments. Without going into details, I wish to refer to one different aspect. There is now in place by way of Government decision, on my proposal, a requirement that women make up 40 per cent of new appointments, to boards. That could have been done by previous Governments, but it was not. This has been done by the Government within a relatively short time.
I have already given a commitment in so far as the Legal Aid Service is concerned, perhaps the main subject we discussed this morning. I will try to ensure that the maximum possible resources are obtained for the Legal Aid Service, which is such an important issue. I hope that the finance spokespersons of the parties who contributed to the debate this morning will moderate their criticism about this being a big spending and big taxing Government. Perhaps the other members of the Committee would remind their finance spokespersons that these big allocations, which they pressed for here this morning with great dedication, requires taxation. One cannot have one without the other.
Choices.
I do not expect a committee meeting of this nature to be a "love-in". I do not have a problem with any criticisms or searching questions which may be raised by members of the Committee. However, I have to express some disappointment at a comment made by Deputy Shatter in his opening statement. His suggestion that my constituency colleague, Deputy Eamon Walsh, was some kind of shadow and not a person in his own right is not acceptable and most certainly is not true. Deputy Eamon Walsh has been a public representative for a long time — he has been a member of a local authority for many years — and is very much his own man. He was elected by the people of Dublin South West. He has his own mind, and it is not a shadow or reflection of mine. Deputy Shatter's suggestion was less than gracious and is not in accordance with the facts.
Having said that, I thank Deputy Shatter and all the other Deputies who contributed to the debate. Many of the suggestions were helpful and constructive and I will review all of them in departmental discussions during the weeks ahead.
I thank the Minister and the members of the Committee for their contributions to this valuable debate. It is proposed that the Committee should meet next Friday, 21 May, to consider the Estimates for the Department of Justice. Is that agreed?
On that point, the Department of Justice has a much bigger allocation than this Department and the Minister for Justice has responsibilities which are wider than those of this Minister. Much more time should be devoted to the Department of Justice Estimates. We should consider having two separate sittings of this Committee to deal with them. The leaders of the various groups could perhaps consider this and look at ways in which the Estimates could be divided up for discussion purposes. I would be loath to take the Estimates for the Department of Justice within the timescale allocated today for the Estimates for the Department of Equality and Law Reform.
That is a matter for the convenors and it can be discussed by them.
The Select Committee adjourned at 1.50 p.m. until 10 a.m. on Friday, 21 May 1993.