I presume it is not necessary for me to go separately into the amendments which I have ruled out. Under Standing Orders, only a Minister can move to increase a charge, by way of motion or amendment. Hence no amendment, by a private Deputy, which would increase a charge, may be moved.
Committee on Finance. - Children's Allowances Bill, 1943—Committee.
What amendments are you ruling out, Sir?
No. 1 stands; also No. 4; Nos. 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, stand. No. 14, which, of course, goes with No. 2, is out of order.
What about No. 13?
No. 13 stands.
Section 1 agreed to.
SECTION 2.
I wish formally to move amendment No. 1, standing in the name of Deputy Pattison:—
In sub-section (1) (a), page 3, line 3, after the word "areas" to insert the words and brackets "(not exceeding three)".
Deputy Pattison proposes that the number of regions to be declared under the Bill should not exceed three. It is not intended that the number of regions will exceed three. In so far as it has been possible to plan out the administration of this Act in advance, I am satisfied that the most useful method will be to divide the country into three regions in order to split up the problem of administration. I think, however, it is undesirable that we should make it a statutory provision that three should be three regions, no more and no less. It may prove when we get down to the actual problem of administration that two regions will be sufficient or that four regions will be necessary. While I can inform the Dáil that the intention now is to have three regions, I prefer that it would be left at that rather than that we should make it a statutory obligation which would involve an amending Act if it was found for any reason that we had to depart from that particular intention.
The purpose of this amendment was to get more information about regional direction, and I think that the Minister's explanation will enable us to withdraw the amendment.
I take it, then, that the amendment is being withdrawn?
Yes, Sir.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
With regard to this section, Sir, I anticipated that my amendment, No. 2 on the Order Paper, would be out of order.
Yes.
Question proposed: "That Section 2 stand part of the Bill."
On the section, Sir, I take it, however, that your ruling does not preclude me from dealing with this question of the provision of claims for children's allowances in the case of persons not qualified on the appointed day nor in the period which is to be the first period payment for each region—I mean, not qualified in the sense in which we would assess qualification in the normal way. What I have in mind is the case of people who may suffer through not having their qualifications acknowledged, because they may not be able to comply with statutory requirements.
Let us take two cases. Take the case of a person who makes an application for a children's allowance: he has a child aged 12, or approaching 13, and let us assume that that child will reach its 16th birthday one week after the period Order commences to operate. Now, in the normal acceptation of the word "qualification", that family was qualified for a children's allowance but, as a result of the way in which this Bill is drawn, the family concerned is not qualified to draw children's allowances for five months and three weeks. Let me take another case. Let us say that there are two children in a family, one aged 13, and the other just reaching its 16th birthday a fortnight before the payment period. The child concerned was born, let us say, a day or two after the period which is covered by this section. Now, I think that, according to the intentions of this Bill, that family should be able to qualify for a children's allowance in such a case, but the fact is that, statutorily, they are not entitled to claim on behalf of that child, just because the child concerned was born a day after the period that is covered under the statute.
I am informed that, in the absence of an amendment dealing with persons to whom we wish to be benevolent under this Bill, an amendment suggesting the giving of statutory compensation to such persons is not permitted, but that it may be left to the benevolence of the Minister. I submit, Sir, that it is not my business to interfere with the benevolence of the Minister, but I think that it is my business to try to see that there should be some statutory obligation to deal with such cases. In the one case there are three children concerned, and in the other case there would appear to be a statutory bar against one of the children, and I only want to draw the attention of the House to this matter. My idea in putting down the amendment was to make provision for a person making application in the case of, let us say, three children, one of whom might have been born within a day or two of the statutory period. I concede at once that it is the Minister's business to put down an amendment to effect that purpose, but, nevertheless, I think it is my duty to point out that there is that infirmity in the Bill, because I think that the Minister himself will agree that it is an infirmity.
With regard to the Deputy's remarks, I am sure that it will be agreed that we should try to decide on a scheme that would be as least costly as possible. I agree that it is theoretically desirable that the entitlement of a family to a children's allowance should be determined from day to day, and that if there is a change in a family which makes it necessary for an increased payment to be made, the payment should be made as soon as possible after that change takes place. On the other hand, it would be necessary to ensure the cessation of such payments as soon as the qualification ends. If, however, we were to try to do that in practice—a very desirable thing I admit—it would mean an enormously increased expenditure so far as this scheme is concerned, because, clearly, you would have to have machinery set up which would enable you to have an examination of each family, practically, from day to day, or to examine the details furnished by the head of the family, from day to day. In order to avoid the additional administrative costs that might be involved, we devised this scheme of determining twice a year what was the amount of allowance to be paid, and paying it during the ensuing period after the qualifying date, irrespective of any change that might occur between that and the next qualifying date.
As Deputies know, the general scheme is that there will be a qualifying date, and that subject to a division of the State into various regions or areas, a payment period with regard to each region. The circumstances of each family will be determined and recorded as they exist on the qualifying day. Some three months later a payment, relating to that particular period, will begin, and during that period the payments to the family will be on the basis of what has been recorded. Half-way during the payment period there will be another review of the circumstances of the families concerned, and it can then be determined what amount should be paid to each family during the ensuing payment period. It is true that, under the system, some families will get more, during portion of the payment period, than that to which they would be entitled if we had an examination proceeding all the time; but, on the other hand, some families would get less than they were entitled to, and these things cannot be adjusted during the current payment period. I think it works out fairly well, because it enables a checking-up on the returns made by the heads of families, and allows us to determine what payment should be made to the family concerned during the period.
I admit the desirability of the scheme suggested by Deputy Cosgrave, but I think it would be very costly; certainly, it would be very much more difficult, from the point of view of administration, than anything that is proposed in the Bill. I think that the scheme proposed in the Bill is one of the best that could be proposed in the circumstances, and one which, certainly, admits of the least administrative difficulties or expenses. I think that I mentioned, in the course of the Second Reading debate on this Bill, that that was one of the things that influenced us in connection with this Bill. It is inevitable, of course, that any scheme of the kind will offer a number of administrative difficulties and problems, and our aim is to see that the cost of the administration of the Bill will be only a small and insignificant portion of the whole scheme.
Mr. Dockrell
I should like to ask the Minister one or two questions in connection with this particular matter. First of all, I quite agree with the Minister when he states that he wants to have the least possible trouble or cost in connection with the administration of the Bill, and I hope that, by that, he means the least trouble to everybody.
Quite.
Mr. Dockrell
The first question I want to put to the Minister is this: Let us take the case of a family who have established their right to a children's allowance and who, through one cause or another, find themselves unable to draw the allowance for quite a considerable period. At what period does the Minister propose to rule those payments as having expired? I do not want to tie the Minister to any hard and fast decision.
It is in the Bill. Section 18 provides for that. The allowance payable does not become invalid until three months have passed. A person who gets a book which entitles him to a certain amount can, if he so desires, accumulate these cheques and not draw upon them for a period of three months. After three months they become invalid.
Mr. Dockrell
If there is good and sufficient reason for being unable to cash these cheques for a longer period would there be any appeal?
We fixed the statutory limit of three months. I think that is long enough to provide for any possible set of circumstances we might contemplate, except in the case of persons whose means are such that children's allowances mean nothing to them and they forget all about the matter. Where the allowance means some appreciable difference in the family income three months will be sufficient.
The Deputy will have an opportunity on Section 18, as there is an amendment tabled to achieve that purpose.
Mr. Dockrell
Perhaps the next question would also arise on Section 18. It concerns income-tax. Would a person who pays income-tax have to draw the 52 weeks' allowance, amounting to £6 10s., to get an abatement in income-tax? Is there any way by which such a person could hand in the cheques without drawing any of them, and have his assessment dealt with accordingly?
I would not be prepared to answer that question. It does not arise on this Bill. I mentioned that it was the intention to offset the benefit of children's allowance in respect of income-tax by an amendment of the income-tax code. That is not provided for in this Bill. Proposals for amending the income-tax code will be brought forward subsequently by the Minister for Finance, when questions relating to matters of this kind would arise.
Mr. Dockrell
Part of it relates to income-tax payers who get an allowance under this Bill, and then there is the allowance they are to receive under the Finance Bill. Supposing an income-tax payer has to collect 52 allowances in return for a decreased income-tax allowance, will the Minister for Finance then say: "Oh, that should have been raised on the Children's Allowances Bill"? Is there any provision so that a person will not have to go 52 times yearly to the post office?
That does not arise now. It need not necessarily happen. It might be possible to provide, where desirable, that the allowance could be paid in individual cases into a banking account. So far as the Bill goes—even if everybody were to be paid by means of vouchers—they would not necessarily have to go to the post office more than four times in the year, because of the three months' provision. They could accumulate the vouchers for three months and then cash them. There can be no question of going 52 times to the post office. There will be two payment periods and variations in the amount of the family allowance in particular cases.
Mr. Dockrell
But these vouchers are out of date in three months. I ask the Minister to ensure that there will be the least possible trouble involved for all concerned, including the post office officials, whose time is worth money to the country. If the Minister will consider how what I suggest could be done so that there would be the utmost expedition, I am satisfied.
Are we to understand that Deputy Cosgrave's amendment is withdrawn?
Mr. Cosgrave
No; it is out of order.
My objection to this section is the objection I have to most Bills brought before the House nowadays, and that is, that they only contain half the story. This Bill does not even contain that much, with particular reference to Section 2. Many things may be done by Order yet, and in his introductory speech, the Minister told us what he proposes to do under various headings. It seems to me that it would have been much better for this House if the actual provisions which it was proposed to achieve were before us for discussion. We are now merely discussing whether we will give this power. We do not know what the Minister is going to do, particularly in this case, where apparently he has a scheme worked out and his mind made up as to what he will do. I feel that that should be embodied in legislation like this, giving power to do so much by Order, which has become so prevalent not only in this country but elsewhere.
I have sympathy with the Minister when he tries to explain Sections 2 and 3 because I am bewildered by their provisions. There is the qualifying date and the first payment period. If somebody becomes qualified after the qualifying date the family have to wait until the end of that period?
Until the next qualifying date.
How long is that?
Six months from one date to another.
That is to say, in the case of a child coming into the world after one qualifying date, the family has to remain without any payment for six months.
As I pointed out, the reverse is also true.
I am not so much concerned with the people Deputy Dockrell referred to, who pay income-tax. I am concerned for people to whom 2/6 weekly is of some importance and who have to do without it.
As many will gain.
I do not see how one wrong can right another.
We must have some period. If any major charge occurs the family allowance will be adjusted accordingly. There must be some period in order to get the cheapest and simplest form and we suggest a six months' period.
I admit that the Minister has a period in mind, and I sympathise with him. Every child will have to get a birth certificate some time in order to indicate that it is qualified. Why not make the qualifying date retrospective?
Would the Deputy make it retrospective in the case of a child who dies, a child who is past 16, or a child who goes to live with a relative?
It will be made retrospective for a child who comes within the first qualifying period. Let us say that the qualifying period is May 1st. The child is born on the 1st June and say the next qualifying date is the 1st August. Will the payment in respect of that child be dated back from the 1st August to the 1st June.
No.
Why not?
I have tried to explain that. We are working the system on the basis of six-monthly periods. That is what the Bill proposes because it simplifies the problem of checking family circumstances. I admitted in introducing the Bill that there will be cases where there will be an addition to the number of qualified children in a family during the period from the qualifying date immediately preceding a child's birth to the next qualifying date and that in respect of such addition no children's allowance will be paid during that period. There will, however, be other cases where the reverse will happen. Deputy Cosgrave mentioned the case of a family with three children, one 13 years of age, one 14 years of age, and one just under 16. The child under 16 will reach the age of 16 at some period between the two qualifying dates, but the family will continue to receive the family allowance during the ensuing payment period. Whether we make the period weekly periods, monthly periods or six-monthly periods, there must be some period during which the allowances will be paid on a particular basis irrespective of changes in the family. We could not possible devise a system whereby changes in family circumstances would be immediately and automatically reflected in the payments made to the family. These changes will take other forms also—children going to live with relatives, children going to certain schools, and other changes of that kind. I could give a number of changes that may affect the circumstances of a family on one day as against another.
The proposal here put forward although open to certain criticism, can nevertheless be defended on the ground that the public will easily understand it and that it simplifies the problem of administration. We give to the head of the family a book of 26 vouchers, each voucher representing the payment to which the family will be entitled during each week of the payment period. Half-way through the book of vouchers there will be an application form pinned into the book, similar to the device used by banks in cheque books to enable the bank's customers to have the cheque book renewed. As the family draws off the vouchers each week and cashes them in the post office, they will in due time come to the application form in the middle of the book which they will then fill in and lodge in the appropriate manner, representing an application relating to the qualifying date for the next payment period. That is a system of administration that is simple and one that will be easily understood by the public whereas if we had a complicated system by which the payments would be frequently varied, as changes arose in family circumstances, not merely would it give rise to many administrative complications but also to misunderstanding of their obligations amongst members of the public. The justification for this system is that it not merely facilitates the method of administration but that it will be easily understood by the average person.
I think the Minister is right in his attitude on this point. Superficially it may mean that some injustice will accrue but, taking the whole picture, it will mean that while some people may have to wait a little longer, others will get something in the nature of a gratuity by reason of their being permitted to draw a child's allowance during a period within which they are not, strictly speaking, entitled to it. Taking the case mentioned by Deputy Hogan, where a child comes into the world two days after a qualifying date, I think the parents in that case will have to remain nine months out of a children's allowance because there will be a three months' wait after the next qualifying date.
There will be six months until the next qualifying date.
That would be nine months in all. We can at this stage say whether we are in favour of setting up immensely elaborate machinery which will enable the payment in respect of that child to be made at an earlier period, but whatever the payment period is to be, there is going to be some measure of hardship in respect of some children. It has to be borne in mind, however, that the child who fails to get its allowance the morning after it is born, will, in all human probability, at the other end of its life bring in an unforeseen boon to the family by drawing an allowance for three, four or five months after it has passed the maximum age.
In 15 years' time?
We must take the long view. Please God, that child will live not for 15 years but for five times 15 years. I wonder would it be worth considering shortening the period to three months? Somebody may raise the objection that we ought to make the payment in respect of the child who comes into the world a couple of days after the qualifying date retrospective, and so give the parents nine months' back money, but you cannot logically argue in favour of that course unless you argue on the other hand that poor families should also be asked to refund allowances which they receive during a period subsequent to the date on which a child reaches 16 years. I think Deputies would agree that it is quite impracticable to go to people who have a slender income to ask them to refund four or five months' family allowances in respect of a child who had passed the age of 16 after the qualifying date. I am in favour of the Minister's plan. It is a rough-and-ready plan, but it has got this merit— that it is the first evidence I have seen of a Minister who is prepared to shake off red-tape and do things in a business-like way. If it should prove in the course of time that this system has some glaring anachronisms the Minister can come to the Dáil with an amending Bill. I should like to know from the Minister whether it would be an undue burden on the administrative costs to reduce the period from six months to three months.
A three months' period would actually double the administrative problem. Let me give the House the statistics. We assume that there will be 150,000 applications, roughly 50,000 in each of the regions. That means that, within a period of six months, each of these 150,000 cases must be reviewed and there must be issued to each of them a book of vouchers representing the exact amount of the family allowance to which each family is entitled—2/6, 5/- or 7/6 as the case may be. If you had a three months' period, you would have exactly double the work. Instead of dealing with 150,000 cases within six months you would have to deal with 300,000 cases every six months. I do not see that you could get very far away from the position that is contemplated by the Bill, in any event. It would not be possible to arrive at what would be regarded as the ideal solution referred to by the Deputy, that is to change the amount of the family allowance immediately following a change in family circumstances. There must be an examination of the change and an investigation of the bona fides of the claim, in so far as we want to provide vouchers in advance. There must be some machinery for the cancellation of vouchers which are no longer valid, which may have to be substituted by others representing the payment to which the family are entitled. This administrative method becomes impracticable if you depart from the conception on which it is based, namely, that once every six months we review the circumstances of each family and we pay family allowances on the basis of that determination for a further period of six months. If you depart from that and want to have more frequent reviews at different periods for every family—because that is the basis of Deputy Hogan's suggestion—not merely does the question of the qualifying date and the determination of the basis on which payment is to be made during the subsequent six months become impracticable but the whole system of payments which we contemplate is thrown overboard.
Deputy Benson said that a great part of what this Bill will achieve is not set out in the Bill, that the Bill merely empowers the making of regulations to do these things. That is true. I do not think it is desirable that it should be otherwise. Naturally, the Government having decided on a children's allowances scheme and upon the general principles of that scheme, asked itself: "Can this be done? What administrative problems will arise in the doing of it and can those problems be successfully overcome?" Before the Bill was framed, all the problems of administration which we foresaw were tabulated and the solution of them put down. The Bill was framed in relation to that contemplated scheme of administration. It may be that when we come to put those regulations actually into force some modification of them will be necessary. If we set out here not merely the general principles of the scheme but the regulations under which the scheme would be worked, then not merely should we have to try to foresee every possible contingency and guard against it by regulation, but if we found that some of those regulations were unworkable —perhaps only in respect of minor details—it would be necessary to frame amending legislation to get out of the difficulty. It is better, therefore, to do as is done in all Bills of this kind— enact the general principles on which the scheme is to be based and empower the executive Minister concerned to apply those principles to particular cases by means of regulations. These regulations may have to be changed again and again before we get over all the difficulties that will emerge. It is probably true to say that there was a new Unemployment Insurance Act every year from 1922, when the Dáil was set up, until 1929 before the unemployment insurance code got established and all the problems that had arisen in its administration were eliminated. To try to avoid similar difficulties arising in connection with this Bill, we propose to proceed by this method.
I have tried to convey to the Dáil as clearly as possible the scheme of administration on which the Bill is based. It is not intended to depart from the general principles of that scheme but, in the actual application of the principles to the circumstances which will arise when we get applications and when we shall have to consider the problems associated with these applications, modifications may be required from time to time. I do not think that we should tie ourselves up so rigidly that we could not make those modifications without an amending Bill. A period of six months is as reasonable as it is possible to get without contemplating an administrative scheme completely out of proportion to the Bill. What is contemplated is that the cost of administration should be below 10 per cent. of the total cost of the scheme. We can do that on the basis of the Bill as framed but if we decide to elaborate on the provisions here, to provide for more frequent reviews of the circumstances of families and to abandon this idea of having a qualifying date for all families and paying on the basis of the circumstances on that date for the ensuring period, the cost of administration is bound to go up and many become a far more significant part of the total cost than is contemplated.
I think that it is a delusion on the part of the Minister to imagine that by reducing the period from six to three months the cost would be doubled. If the Minister is right in that, I agree that he should stick to the six months. But if, in consultation with the experts, he is advised that the cost of administration would not be substantially increased, that all the machinery would be there to do the job, that it would not involve the creation of additional machinery, but merely require that the machinery work somewhat faster than originally intended—if, after consultation with these experts, he finds he can keep the administrative cost within 10 per cent. and reduce the period to three months, will he consider introducing an amendment on Report Stage providing for the three months?
As the Bill stands, we shall have 300,000 reviews and 300,000 issues of books of vouchers to make every year. If the period is reduced to three months, we shall have 600,000 reviews and 600,000 issues of books of vouchers to make.
Not necessarily. I should like to regain custody of this child which Deputy Hogan has seized from me. The case I put up was that a person having a sufficient number of children to qualify should be enabled to make his application and get payment without the contemplated delay. We are told that there are administrative difficulties. What are they? Surely every family is not going to be called upon on a particular day by the administrative staff to see whether or not they are qualified, or what their qualifications are. There must be varying periods. Granted that there are, what is the objection to the man who is going to call on Mrs. O'Sullivan calling instead on Mrs. Murphy? If he calls on Mrs. Murphy on a particular date, it will not be necessary to call on her again within a week's time. I do not see the administrative difficulties at all, and I believe they are non-existent. As the Bill is planned, difficulties can be put in the way of people who are qualified.
The case I put to the Minister was that of a child born the day after the qualifying date and before the payment period. There is no machinery in this section, nor under the Bill, whereby the parents of that child can get the allowance before six months. Although perfectly qualified, they will get nothing for six months. Take a case in which one of three children reaches the age of 16 a week before the end of the period, and again before the qualifying date. The parents of those children will get no allowance at all. It is nonsense to say that this provision will result in fairness all round, that the family deprived of children's allowance will have the satisfaction of knowing that the family next door is receiving it, although not so well entitled to it. From my experience of the people, they regard such a happening in the administration of an Act as a gross injustice. If the Minister has 1,000 officials, there is no earthly reason why the services of 50 of them should not be devoted to the examination of applications of persons not qualified on the qualifying date but becoming qualified immediately afterwards.
The Deputy will understand that the scheme of administration we have in mind is that we should issue those books of vouchers, the value of each voucher being determined on the basis of the family circumstances on the qualifying date. If we have to review the family circumstances each time a change is reported in the family circumstances, the scheme of administration will fall to the ground.
Mark off a page of the first five books.
It is not a question of being qualified after the period; it is a question of the amount the family is qualified to receive. If there is an addition to the family, it will mean a change in the amount from, say, 5/- to 7/6.
That means simply an extra rubber stamp.
There are 150,000 cases.
This would not mean dealing with 150,000 cases.
It would. One must be prepared to deal with 150,000 cases. It must not be assumed that only in some cases would there be a change. There may be a change in every single case and the probability is that, in the majority of cases, there will be a change. This change will not take the form of a new child in the family. A child may die or pass over the age of 16, or may go to live with relatives. A number of circumstances may arise involving a change in the entitlement of the family to an allowance, which could not be admitted without examination and investigation.
Admittedly, there is some extra investigation, but I am convinced that the Minister is honestly exaggerating the case, without knowing it.
On the contrary, I am putting it as strongly as it can be put.
Let us see the common factors that would bring about a change in conditions—a birth and a death. Let us take the average county and leave the city out of it for a moment. The average number of deaths and births are nearly equal in the ordinary county. You have about 1,000 births and 1,000 deaths per annum. We will say 15 or 20 per cent. of the deaths are children, and that would be only about 200 cases of children's deaths to investigate in a county. There are 30 to 40 births in a parish or dispensary district per annum. We come back to a point which was raised before, that is, the Department which should handle this Bill. There is machinery at the moment under the Department of Local Government to ensure that, within 48 hours of every birth, the birth is notified.
Indeed it is not, nor anything like it. We cannot get some registrars to notify for a month. We know of cases of that kind in fixing the ration of commodities.
The Minister is assuming that I am talking of the Registrar-General's Department. I am not, I am talking of the Public Health Department. Within 48 hours they have to be notified or there is a fine. The Registrar-General's Department is quite a different machine and very often there are very delayed registrations. Both those Departments are under the Minister for Local Government and Public Health, who would tell the Minister for Industry and Commerce that there is no great administrative difficulty or expense in getting prompt notification of a birth.
The Deputy misses the point altogether. That is merely getting notification of the birth. Having got that, we would have then to alter the whole arrangement that would be already in force for the payment of the allowance to that family. Will the Deputy try to realise what follows on the birth, if we were to have this automatic change in the allowance?
I will. Let us take the position at the end of the third month, the 13th week. A child is born then. It would be a case of issuing 13 new postal orders for that particular case. A girl typist could do it, provided there were reserve books in the Department. The deaths are a very, very small thing—the deaths of children under 16 are only a fraction of the births. They are not worth discussing, as they are so few in number. While not tying myself to exact figures, I would say the average number of births in a dispensary district outside the City of Dublin would be between 30 and 40 per annum. That is not a very big problem. The Minister may say it would cost a large amount, but he has not demonstrated that. The issuing of postal orders or cheques to an extra 30 children—or rather, half that amount as they are being paid every six months, making 15 or 20 children—in each parish could not cost so much. It is merely a case of getting one person who could issue the reserve postal orders.
Deputy O'Higgins has raised a very important point, but he over looked the fact that other changes will occur than the one he mentioned.
It is the commonest.
An equally common one would be of children reaching the age of 16, which also would involve a change. There is also the case of a child being transferred from one family to another—a child might go to live with some other relative.
In the case of children reaching the age of 16, that would be known in advance. A limited number of vouchers could be issued in that case.
In order to escape additional expense there must be a definite fixed period. If the Minister would consider a period of three months as an alternative to six months, it might help; but I do not think it is possible to have an automatic change in the amount of the allowance according as changes occur in the family circumstances.
I do not think we could quarrel with the machinery the Minister has envisaged under this section. I would be the last to agree with the Minister if I could help it, but I realise there must be some machinery. From the point of view of claimants under this Bill, and from the point of view of persons who will have to advise them in making claims, it would be better to have the longer period of six months; as the less an ordinary person is troubled by investigation officers and the filling of forms, the better for themselves. That is why I would be against the reduction of the period to three months. Even without any change, as I gathered from the Minister, it still would be necessary for the family to fill in the application form in the book. We here may find it no trouble to fill in applications, but thousands of people find it a severe mental and physical problem.
I feel we could agree with Deputy Cosgrave on the point he has raised regarding a child born a week after the qualifying date. As the Bill now stands, that child will be deprived of benefit for a period of nine months. It is no use saying, as we do here, that the good is bound up with the bad; you cannot get the ordinary man or woman to understand that if they are denied something the balance goes to someone else who gets something to which he is not entitled. We all agree that, taking the Bill as a whole, we would be more generous if we could, but we are tied down by certain limitations made by the Government. Here is a small item in which there could be adjustment and which would not involve great expense. It involves retrospective payment in the case of a child born a week after the qualifying date. That could be investigated in the ordinary way six months later on the qualifying date, and they would become entitled to it three months later still, on the date payment commences. When the investigation is made the officer must, of necessity, go back to the date of the birth of the child, and there is no special problem involved in allowing the child to become qualified from the date of birth and to issue the necessary payment orders for the retrospective period.
I suggest to the Minister that, from his own point of view and from that of the Government, a small thing like this might make for more value in such a measure as this than the larger questions of principle which we raise here. The ordinary family, where an additional child is born after the qualifying date and which receives no payment in respect of that child, sees alongside another family where a child has qualified and has died and where the family continues to receive the payment for six months. They do not understand that. The Minister can take the necessary power. This point can be met without any great administrative changes. It is merely a question of giving retrospective effect, following investigations. I think the Minister should try to meet this point. I do not think it is impracticable, because the investigation must be made back to the birth of the child. It is really only a matter of clerical work, giving effect to what has been checked and found correct.
Will the Deputy confine it to additions to the family through births? Would he not include additions through other causes?
I think the births are the most important thing. I speak from the point of view of the way in which this measure will best be appreciated. The child is born and the parents must wait nine months before any benefit is derived. Alongside that, another child has died and is buried. The position outlined in the Bill is something the ordinary person cannot understand. We can understand it here. What I suggest will mean a very small change in methods of administration.
I think the Deputy misunderstands the situation when he says this is only a small matter. Actually, it will involve about 40,000 additional investigations in the year— that would represent the number of births.
You have to make investigations anyway.
No, not in the sense suggested by the Deputy.
Take a family with three children, one of whom qualifies. The 3rd December is the qualifying date. Let us say that on the 10th December another child is born. There will be an application made for that child in due course because of the change in the family circumstances. The next qualifying date is in June. Your officers make an investigation of that claim and they must of necessity investigate back to the date of birth of the child. You must have the birth certificate. You pass that child as being qualified. The proposal is to pass it for a period three months ahead. I suggest it is a simple clerical matter to pass it in respect of the date of birth.
Mr. Larkin
I think there is a simple way out of this difficulty. There must be an appointed day. Here is an opportunity to start the scheme and overcome the difficulties that you seem to be confused about. The Act comes into force, and let us take as an illustration the family with five or six children. A certain period must elapse in which you qualify the children who will benefit under the scheme of allowances. We all know how officials deal with these things. There are some of us who can appreciate the difficulties involved. Documents are passed from one official to another. Then we must try to realise the difficulties of the persons who make claims. I believe that 34 per cent. of the classes in Dublin who will be most affected by this legislation are illiterate. Those of us who have been accustomed to fill in forms time and again for those people know what difficulties will have to be faced. I might say they are almost insurmountable.
A man has, say, two children and then he is lucky enough to have a third child born. The first child and the second child are registered. Why not carry that registration as a certificate of birth? They have to be registered. I admit that some people are rather dilatory and may not register a child at once, but the child is eventually registered. I suggest that you give the child the allowance on the certificate of birth, and pay from the week it is born, and then you will have very little difficulty. As a parent you claim your money. The only right you have to get the money is to bring the certificates of the other children with you. If you cannot produce the certificates, your claim is objected to, and then you have to see the qualifying officer and have the claim investigated. Let us suppose the child dies. At the end of six months you have the death certificate. It only requires consideration to see that that obviates the postponement of payment for nine months and it does away with the overpayment after death. The death certificate disqualifies them.
The parents have to prove their right, and I see no difficulty about it. It does not require elaborate machinery. The birth registration clerk can qualify the child. The responsibility then is on the parents and the child to prove the qualification. We all know how many grave abuses there were with the Unemployment Act. You found out those abuses only when they were brought to your notice. There were people, who were working, getting unemployment money for months. Every Deputy here knows that. In this case the only qualification needed is to carry with you your right as a newly-born citizen to get the money. There is no question of paying back money that you have drawn illegally, and there is no question of waiting for nine months. I submit you ought to consider the matter from that angle.
Mr. Byrne
With other Deputies I appeal to the Minister to take back this section and consider the points made by Deputies in nearly all parts of the House. It will be a very grave injustice, and it certainly will be a very great disappointment to the parents of a child that arrives a day or two after the appointed day for payment, because they will have to wait three, six or nine months before they receive money for the child. I and other Deputies think, so far as the Minister is concerned, that there is a will in this matter, and where there is a will, there is a way. All that will be needed is a little extra staff to inspect and report.
There is no reason why the child, from the date of its birth, should not get the allowance of 2/6. If payment cannot be made immediately, the parent should get the money retrospectively. It is really only a matter of routine office work. I appeal to the Minister to make sure that disappointment will not be caused to persons whose third child arrives after the day appointed. I was rather interested to hear one Deputy saying that a child could get additional payment by way of voucher even at 16. I do not think that is possible. When the child of to-day is 16, most of us will not be here. Most of the younger members may recollect the Minister saying so. In view of all these circumstances, I think the Minister should postpone to a later stage the consideration of this section. I hope that he will be able to give it more sympathetic consideration. He has been congratulated from all sides of the House on bringing forward this Bill. It is a step in the right direction and from it we expect greater things.
Deputies should appreciate that we must not merely try to get a children's allowances scheme that will look well on paper but one that will work. That is the issue that is raised here. It is, what type of scheme will work easily, having regard to all the difficulties that are there; the difficulties of administration on the one hand, and the difficulty of getting members of the public easily to understand what is required of them on the other. If we abandon the scheme of administration contemplated in the Bill and adopt that which Deputies are suggesting, one which involves an alteration in the amount of the allowance paid to a family simultaneously with changes in the family conditions, you are going to complicate the system of administration tremendously. My belief is that machinery to carry through that type of organisation could not be set up. It would break down so frequently that it would be necessary to go back to some such device as that provided for in the Bill. It may be that there are theoretical objections to this arrangement, but the practical consideration is that it will work.
Hear, hear!
There is also the fact that people should easily understand what is required of them. As Deputy Larkin has said, the filling in of a form or the discharge of any duty of that kind, is a serious matter for a lot of people. They do not always understand precisely what is required of them or how they should go about it. They go and seek the advice of a trade union official, the parish priest, the dispensary doctor, or some person of that kind. Now, the less frequently they have to do that and the simpler the form they have to handle, the better it will be. If we were to adopt the device of trying to modify the amount of the family allowance, according to changes in the condition of a family, then the whole scheme of administration that we have in mind would become almost impracticable.
We contemplate an investigation of the family circumstances at a particular date, a report of that investigation coming into the officer administering the scheme, and on that there will be a determination of the amount of the payment to be made to each such family during the next payment period. That amount will be paid by means of numbered cheques, each bearing on the face of it the amount of the weekly payment due to that family. If we were to have this daily review of family conditions then we could not work upon the system in the Bill. We would have to be continuously taking into account either increasing the amount provided for the family or, if we go the whole hog, possibly decreasing the amount as well. I think that if Deputies were faced with the task of administering this children's allowances scheme they would have devised a system similar to that in the Bill.
Mr. Larkin
This is not a children's allowances Bill. It is a family allowances Bill based on the number of children in the family. Suppose you have three children who qualify—are you going to give them three half-crowns multipled by a certain number of days? I think that would be a stupid thing to do. If a parent has three children and one qualifies, the parent has the book and gets the coupons on that. When a child dies the book has to be produced to the registrar of deaths who stamps it.
The Minister has been indulging in a good deal of specious pleading. He says that a large percentage of people who will be called upon to make application are not accustomed to filling in forms. Does the manner in which it is proposed to operate this measure help to make that duty easier for them?
It does.
Surely the filling in of forms for the next qualifying date is not going to be any more difficult for them at that time than in six months' time. What is the difficulty? What difficulty can there be in a parent getting a certificate to say that the child is in existance? What is wrong, in regard to the qualifying date, in giving a book of coupons that will enable the parent or some person in loco parentis to get the money from the period covered from the date of the birth? So far as I see, all the difficulties that the Minister has pointed out about the filling in of forms are simply specious pleading, and there is no substance in it.
I think the Minister is right if he would agree to the three months.
He must be wrong when Deputy Dillon agrees with him.
Suppose you had in operation some machinery between the Minister's Department and the Department of Local Government and Public Health so that the registration of births and deaths and of those under 16 years of age would be automatically conveyed to the Minister's Department, one, I think, could say that up to that point an arrangement of that sort would not involve either increased cost or increased work on the Department.
That system would not work. I know that it is not working now in relation to the issue of ration books. It is important that it should work in relation to the issue of ration books, but I can say that it is unsatisfactory even at the present time.
With regard to certain ration books—those of deceased people—I think it is correct to say that it was only within the last 24 days that instructions went out.
No.
I think what I have said is correct in the case of deaths from infectious disease. Therefore, I think it is a bit early to say that such an arrangement would not work.
I think if the Deputy makes inquiries he will find that one of the commonest complaints throughout the country is that when a child is born into a family, the family cannot get the ration book for that child sometimes for six weeks afterwards.
I was referring to a different thing—to deaths. In the case of births, if a birth means 2/6 a week to a family, will that not be an inducement to the head of the family to register the birth and have prompt notification given? People are not going to dawdle for weeks and months when it means 2/6 a week. If the Bill provided that when a third child was born notification of the birth was given as soon as possible so that payment would be made, I do not think there would be the same Departmental delay. I agree that, if payment is to be made by cheque or postal order to the head of the family, the changes that would have to be made would be rather unwieldy in order to take in an extra child during the period. Take, however, the system that obtains in the case of old age pensions. If there are three old age pensioners in a house, it is not one draft that goes out weekly, so that in the event of the death of one of them the whole draft has not to be changed. What happens is that a postal order goes out to each of those old age pensioners, and if one of them dies his or her book ceases to be operative.
The Deputy appreciates that that is the only change which could occur in that case?
Let us apply that to the family. Let us say that two children of John Jones—Mary and Edward —are getting allowances. If one voucher was sent in respect of Mary and another in respect of Edward, and a third child is born, there need not be any change in the vouchers. They go out as before, but an extra voucher, in respect of Willie, will go our—an extra set of postal orders for the balance of the period. However, I do not want to delay unduly the Minister, the Bill, or the Dáil. I am as convinced that it is not so very unworkable or represents such a tremendous volume of new work as the Minister is convinced is the case, and I ask him between now and Report Stage to look into it in conjunction with the Department of Local Government. He may find that obstacles which appear at the moment to be very formidable are not so formidable.
I do not want to pretend that I have seen all the administrative problems arising out of this Bill to the end. That is not so, but I think we have devised a system of administration which will work, but no one can be certain until it has been brought into operation.
I think the difficulties envisaged by the Minister are more imaginary than real, and that in his desire to get a workable scheme of administration he has devised a scheme which is unduly severe and unfairly rigid in respect of claims under the Bill. Deputy Larkin has with considerable force pleaded the case of the family in which there are two children, and in which a third child is born a few days after the qualifying date. He sought to induce the Minister to permit the parent in that case to make a claim in respect of the date on which the child was born, and to have that claim dealt with without waiting for the subsequent half-yearly inquiry and payment, after the half-yearly inquiry, of the allowance.
That may be the case of a family in very poor circumstances. There are two children and the family is getting no allowance—there may, in fact, be four children, two over and two under 16 years of age—but the birth of a fifth child qualifies one of the family for payment of an allowance. It seems unreasonable that in such a case the family should have to wait for eight months before one of the children, there being already four children, qualifies for the allowance. Whatever difficulty the Minister may envisage in the administration of the scheme, I do not think any real difficulty will arise in a case of that kind. The Minister says it is better to keep as many forms as possible away from these people, but you do not ease their position by postponing the filling up of a form for six months. If they have to fill up a form six months afterwards, they might as well fill it up immediately.
Would the Deputy not agree that the public will easily understand, after a couple of years, that the qualifying date for their area is 1st January or 1st July? That will be known to every household in the area. They will all know that on that date they qualify for payment of children's allowances in accordance with their family circumstances. That date will become as well known to everybody as a bank holiday and the whole problem of administration will be much simpler than it would be if there were a separate date for every family, as the Deputy suggests.
The dog in the Mother Hubbard story knew that he would not get a bone because he knew that Mother Hubbard would not give it to him. That is what is going to happen here—they know they will not get an allowance simply because the Legislature will not give it to them. They never will be able to understand why they should not get it. Here is the case of a family with two children. A third is born, and one member of the family qualifies for payment of an allowance, but probably will not get it for eight or nine months. I suggest that it is not good administration and not calculated to make for contentment in relation to the administration of legislation of this kind, if a person in these circumstances has to wait six or eight months, while, as Deputy Larkin has pointed out, the family may be living beside people who are receiving the allowance in respect of a child who is either dead or has passed beyond the age of 16 years.
The number of inquiries necessary in respect of newly-born children could not be very large. The Minister may say that there are 40,000 births in the year. It will not be necessary to make an inquiry in respect of these 40,000 births, because some of them may be the births of first children and some may be the births of second children. Some might even be the births of third children and you might have to make an inquiry in such a case, but, even then, the inquiry might not be necessary in respect of a third child if the other children happen to be higher up on the age ladder. For the limited number of inquiries which the Minister will have to make, he ought to agree to meet the case as from birth in respect of the payment of an allowance for children in the circumstances we have been discussing.
It has been pointed out that if there are two children in a family receiving allowances, and a third is born, qualifying the family for payment of a third allowance, it is quite easy to issue a supplementary voucher to enable the family to get that third allowance. It will be understood that the family will not get it for a week, two weeks or three weeks after the date on which the child was born, but it is some consolation to a family, and I think it would help to make the Bill more acceptable, if the family knew they would not have to wait for six or eight months before getting the allowance in respect of that child. It would be much better if the family were given payment from the date on which the child is born, if the child happens to be born between one qualifying date and another. The Minister might review the matter between now and Report Stage—he has nearly a fortnight in which to do so—and perhaps devise machinery to meet a case of that kind.
The Bill gives discreation to make regulations which will be designed to facilitate the application of the measure, but it is framed upon two principles: a common qualifying date for each region and a payment period of six months. I do not think we can possibly contemplate the operation of the Bill on any other basis.
The Minister could contemplate shortening the gap between the two qualifying periods.
I will not say that there need necessarily be three months between the first qualifying date and the first payment period. I could not attempt to forecast what problems will arise in that respect, but, once payment starts, in the case of each family, there will be half way in the payment period, a new qualifying date. It will not interfere with the actual payment proceeding at the time, but will merely modify or increase the payment in the next period. How long a period there should be between the first qualifying date and the first payment period, I could not forecast. Deputy Larkin talked about bringing the Bill into operation on 1st April. What I contemplated was having 1st April as the first qualifying date, leading to a first payment period some time later.
Could the Minister not consider fixing three months?
Is the Minister quite satisfied with Section 2, subsection (1) (c), which sets out that the Minister shall fix the first payment period for each region? I take it that it is the Minister's intention that the first payment period should be a period less than what he defines as the payment period.
It may, in fact, be longer.
I should like to know what his intention is with regard to the length of the period, because it brings in a rather obnoxious feature in relation to dealing with Bills which we pass through this House. If we want to find out what exactly is meant by the first payment period, we go back to the definition section. On going back, we find that the first payment period is a period which is not fixed by the House, but which is to be fixed by the Minister at some future date. I think the House should have some explanation of what exactly the Minister has in mind with regard to the first payment period. I take it that it will be during the Minister's period of office that this scheme will come into operation, and, as the Minister has now admitted, the first payment period is likely to be longer than 26 weeks. I do not quite see the necessity for giving the Minister these powers. He might make the period three years, if he wishes to do so.
He could not do that. The necessity for having the first payment period more or less than 26 weeks arises out of the administrative device of dividing the country into three regions. If we have a common payment period of 26 weeks, either the scheme must come into operation at a different date in each region, or we must have one period for the whole country. In order to get the scheme into operation on the same date everywhere, and, at the same time, effect the staggering of the administrative work which the division into regions contemplates, it is clear that the first payment period must vary from one region to another, in order to get this staggering effect which we desire to have from the point of view of administrative convenience. Therefore, we will assume that in the first region the payment period will be 26 weeks, in the next region, the payment period 30 weeks, and in the next a payment period of 36 weeks. That produces this effect: that the second and the subsequent payment periods in each of the regions will start on a different date; the qualifying date in each of these periods will be a different date for each region. We get, therefore, the effect desired, which is the commencing of the operation of the scheme on the same date in all regions, while the administrative problems associated with the review of claims and the commencement of payment on the basis of such reviews arise on a different date in each of the regions.
The length of the first payment period depends on the time it will take to set up the administrative machinery?
The intention is to have the first payment periods of different lengths for each of the regions. In one region, it may be 26 weeks, in another 30 weeks, and in another say 36 weeks. The reason for that is, that the first payment periods will be of different lengths to ensure that the second payment period will commence in each region on a different date.
Supposing a third child is to receive an allowance on the 1st January, the 1st January being the qualifying date, will it be roughly three months after that when the parents of that child get the money?
Yes.
We will say that they get the money on the 1st April. Will they then receive 2/6 per week from the 1st April or will they receive any back payments?
No. If the family circumstances are determined on the 1st January, the payment period will commence on the 1st April. The payment will continue for six months from the 1st April on the basis of the family circumstances on the 1st January.
They will not be paid any back money for the period from 1st January to 1st April?
If the Deputy is talking about the beginning of the scheme he is right. But, if he is talking about the scheme when it is in operation, then during that three months they will be drawing children's allowance, if they are entitled to it, upon the basis of the family circumstances on the 1st of the previous July. They may be drawing more and they may be drawing less. That will depend on the family circumstances as ascertained on the previous 1st July, the previous qualifying date.
I am not quite clear. Supposing the Bill has been in operation for two or three years and a family has a third child born to it some time in the month of December. The qualifying date is the 1st January. There is no doubt about the child's qualification. Three months afterwards they receive payment for that child. Do they get any payment for the period between the 1st January and, we will say, the 1st April?
No; they draw in respect of that child for six months from the 1st April and so on until the child reaches 16.
There is no retrospective payment?
At the other end of the child's life they may be drawing 2/6 per week for three months after the child is 16.
The other end of the child's life does not apply. If the family remains at three children, then the child may be hit both ways.
There must be a period—and the view of the administrative officers who are advising me is that it cannot be less than three months—in which 150,000 claims are investigated, the determination is made as to the amount of allowance to be paid to 150,000 families and the books are issued to these families with instructions as to how to draw upon them. That will take at least three months in the initial period. At a subsequent stage it may be possible to speed up the arrangement. I cannot say, but I think we would be unwise to contemplate doing it in a shorter period than three months, so far as we can foresee.
Suppose a child called Tommy Kelly is to get a half-crown per week from 1st April. Could it not be marked in that book that his parents were to receive that money from that date?
What difference will it make? The only difference would be that they would receive three months' payments in a lump sum and then three months' payments in a weekly sum, instead of six months in a weekly sum. It does not make any difference in the long run because, irrespective of any changes which occur, such as a child dying or living with some other relative, the payment is made to the family.
Is the Minister right in his answer to Deputy Dockrell on that point? The Deputy puts the point that a child is born in December, and January is the qualifying date. As from the qualifying date there is to be an investigation of the family circumstances. Finally it is decided to pay. The Minister says it will take three months before payments can be made. Deputy Dockrell puts the point: will the child be paid from the date on which it is decided to pay or from the qualifying date?
From the appointed date, which is the beginning of the payment period.
We are talking now about circumstances under which the Act is in operation.
There are two dates— the qualifying date and the appointed date.
That is for the purpose of bringing the Act into operation?
No; there is an appointed date for the payment period.
As I read Section 3 (d) (ii), the right of the person to receive an allowance is a right which accrues from the qualifying date, whereas, according to the Minister, the right does not accrue from the qualifying date but from the date on which it is decided to pay. Under Section 3 (d) (ii), it seems to me that that child will have the right to an allowance from the qualifying date, which is January.
The right which has accrued to the family is the right to draw children's allowance during the next payment period upon the basis of the family circumstances on the qualifying date.
We will put it that the child was born in December Will the parents have received at the end of June £3 5s. 0d., which is, I think, 26 half-crowns, or will they have received half of that, which they would get if that child was only paid for from the 1st April?
They will receive only half. There will be still three months coming to them. The payment period will be the six months commencing 1st April.
There will be three months of that child's life during which they do not get paid?
That is right.
Mr. Larkin
The Minister seems to get himself involved. He said that the parents would get the payment on the appointed date, which is April. Deputy Dockrell asked whether they would get £3 5s. 0d. or 26 half-crowns. The point is that they do not get £3 5s. 0d. The parents get a half-crowns per week per child that is qualified. But, if the child dies, the payment continues for the remainder of the six months. That is what they call equalisation. The Bill is like the Intermittent Workers' Bill. Everything done by the draftsmen seems to create confusion. I suggest you get rid of the draftsmen and try to get a common-sense way of dealing with it.
That Bill was drafted with the assistance of the Trade Union Congress.
On the appointed day, which would be the 1st April, the child gets his first payment. Would it not also be quite simple to provide that he should get back payment from the 1st January? Surely the people investigating have to see the actual date on which the child was born.
Certainly, but what we are doing is, we are augmenting the family income for a period of six months in respect of that child. That is what we are proposing to do. We are paying over six months at a weekly rate in respect of that child or any other child.
I understand that, but there will be a great deal of misunderstanding amongst many people on that question.
My advice to the Dáil is to keep the system of administration as simple as possible.
I appreciate that and I should not like to ask the Minister to do anything which is complicated in this matter, but I submit that it would not be very complicated to provide that, when the first payment was being made, they would go back to the qualifying date.
Does it make any difference in the long run?
I think it does.
I do not think so.
As I say, especially if the family remains at three children, the child coming in and entitling the family to get the allowance may get the apprentice's end of the payment, so to speak, and owing to its being born a few days too late, may make the family late in qualifying, and on the other hand, the eldest child who will be passing out when it reaches 16 years of age, may pass out six months too early. The net effect may be that that particular family may lose anything between one year's and one and a half year's payment, through being unlucky in regard to the date of birth of two children. Of course, it may be the reverse. It seems to be a hit or miss arrangement.
The Minister in reply to my previous remarks said that he felt it was necessary to have these powers to make Orders under this Bill, but surely, if the House accepts that argument and it is carried to reductio ad absurdum, the position will arise that a Minister will come into this House and present a one-clause Bill stating “This Bill empowers the Minister to make children's allowances” and leave it at that. That stage has not yet come, and I hope it never will, but it is an obvious result from this.
With regard to the other discussion which has taken place in regard to this section, Deputy Dillon rather congratulated the Minister on producing a simple scheme, with his qualifying dates, and so forth. Surely a qualifying date has been in existence for many years in the income-tax code, and, in fact, under the income-tax code if a child happens to be born one day too late it is very nearly two years before you get any benefit from it. I think the Minister's arrangement here is the best that can be produced. It may strike certain people unfairly. It may strike them unfairly both ways. They may get more or less than they would get if the scheme came into operation on a change in the family circumstances but, taking the average, it will strike everybody pretty fairly. A family may get something here and lose something there. I do not see how it can be improved in that connection without making administration very complicated.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 3.
I move amendment No. 4:—
In sub-section (1) (i) to delete from the word "such" in line 36 to the word "paid" in line 38 and substitute the following words:—
"Where such person has complied with the prescribed conditions as to identification there shall, during the said payment period, be paid to the mother or other female relative or guardian functioning in the household as a house-keeper, or subject to the discretion of the investigation officer, to the person who has so applied".
This amendment is designed to ensure the effective working of the Bill as envisaged in the Title. The Bill is to make children's allowances available. While acknowledging the principle that the father is head of the household, I believe that the benefit to be derived from the allowances is intended for the children and, that being so, the person best qualified, the person in closest touch with the actual needs of the children, is either the mother or the female guardian operating in the mother's place if the mother for some reason, either death or inability, is prevented from acting. The principal purpose of the Bill is to benefit the children. The father has an overriding responsibility to provide for the family. In this case, where an allowance is given which, as far as the family is concerned, is a new allowance, they may not realise that in certain ways, through taxation or increases in the price of certain commodities which the Minister envisaged on the Second Reading, they are paying for it otherwise. So far as they are concerned, it is a benefit which they have not had before and it is quite likely that they will dissipate it. Undoubtedly they appreciate the fact that it is given to them to be used for the best interests of their family, but generally in cases like this there is a danger that it may be spent either on gambling or on drink. The reason I put down this amendment is to obviate that danger. I think the Minister and the House would do well to consider it.
I should like to support this amendment. I think from every point of view it is desirable, first of all, that the father should be recognised as the head of the family. As such, he will be responsible for making the claim for this allowance and ensuring that it is paid and that the form of application is properly filled in, and other matters of that nature. As it is quite a common thing for the father to hand over his wages or portion of his income to his wife for the upkeep of the household, it is right and proper that this allowance should be payable directly to the mother rather than that it should be cashed by the father and utilised as he thinks best. I do not think there can be any objection to the principle involved in this amendment. It is certainly a rerecognition of the importance of the mother as the person who is deemed best qualified to understand the needs of the children and to decide how to utilise this money to the best advantage. I think the Minister should accept this amendment. It will not, I think, conflict with any principle in law which recognises, of course, the father as head of the family, and I think it will ensure that the money will be utilised to better advantage, perhaps, than if the section were to remain as at present drafted.
I would urge the Dáil very strongly to reject this amendment. I take it the main purpose is to ensure the payment of the allowance to the mother rather than to the father and that——
Mr. Larkin
Why not make it optional?
——the proposal to leave it to the discretion of the investigation officer is only incidental to the main proposal. I would not agree to that at all, in any event.
Now, in my view, this amendment implies that fathers of families in this State, who have been providing for their families, are not to be trusted with the expenditure of the sum provided by the State for children's allowances, but it must be remembered that the purpose of this Bill is to augment the family income as a whole, and I do not see why we should try to interfere with the father, as the head of the family, in connection with the use of this money. In that connection, I should like to point out that under Section 20 of the Bill the father, or head of the household, may make whatever arrangements he may desire as to whom the allowance should be given—whether the mother of the family, the housekeeper, or whoever else might be concerned. I think that that is a matter that should be left for arrangement in the family itself and that, in this Bill, we should not try to interfere with the internal arrangements of the family. I hold that, in questions concerning the family, we should keep Government or State interference down to the minimum. That is why I urge that this amendment should not be adopted. After all, apart from whatever allowance for children may be provided under this Bill, the father, generally, is the breadwinner for the family, and I think that the less interference there is with him, the better. If the head of the household—the father—wishes to arrange that these payments should go to the mother of the family, or to some other member of the family, or his housekeeper, a guardian, or somebody else, I think it should be left to his discretion to do so. In effect, I think we shall have to regard the father as the head of the family, having regard to the family as a unit, and that we should not try to interfere with his functions.
May I take it from what the Minister has said that these payments can be made to the mother, or some other member of the family, rather than to the father of the family, in certain circumstances?
Yes. That is provided for under Section 20 of the Bill.
Everybody knows, of course, that the father is regarded as the head of the family, and we know that in the majority of cases, so far as this country is concerned, at any rate, it is the general practice for the father of the family, or head of the household to hand over the money to the mother, as being the one who is best acquainted with the needs of the family. There are exceptions, of course, but provision is made for such exceptions under this amendment. The only purpose of the amendment is to ensure that whatever allowances may accrue as a result of this Bill will be devoted to the benefit of the family in general. I admit that this is a costly measure, and that it will involve the imposition of new taxation. I take it, from what the Minister has said, that he or his Depart ment are not likely to save anything on this Bill—belonging to a spend thrift Ministry, as he does, I quite realise that it is unlikely that any saving could be achieved—but I understood that the real purpose of social legislation of this kind is to ensure more nutritive food for our people and to put the children of the poor beyond the stage of malnutrition which is occasioning disease and, as a result, increasing the expenses of the State. I do not think there would be any interference with the prerogatives of the father, as head of the family or the household, if this amendment were to be accepted. After all, this money is a free gift to the people concerned. and no conditions are attached to it. but, apart from the sentimental point of view, it is my considered opinion. after consultation with persons who are in touch with our people, generally, and who, as a result of their efforts, have achieved a remarkable improvement in the conditions under which our people live, that the money should go to the mother.
As I have said, the spending of the money of the household, in the majority of cases in this country, is left to the wife or mother, and I am sure that the Minister will admit that. At any rate, the experience of people who are best qualified to know is to the effect that it would be better to leave it to the mother when it comes to a question of the allocation of any such moneys. I admit that there are certain exceptions, which I do not propose to deal with now, where a husband or father may fail in his duty in that regard, but I think it will be admitted that, in this country at any rate, the woman—the bean a' tighe—is regarded as the head of the household. Now, why should we interfere with that practice? The whole idea of this amendment is to try to ensure that this money will be spent for the benefit of the children. It might be found, in certain cases, to be inadvisable to give the money to the woman, but the idea behind the amendment is to see that the money will be spent to the best advantage so far as the family is concerned.
We do not suggest that this money is being provided for any particular purpose, such as the buying of food or clothes for the children, or for any specific purpose. The idea underlying the Bill is to provide something to augment the income of people with large families. I admit that, in the case of some families, the income coming in may be used entirely for certain purposes, and that the children may be neglected; but on the other hand it might be found that the children are well provided for, while the father and mother are undernourished because of their efforts to provide for their children. We are not proposing how this money shall be spent. We are only providing this money to augment the incomes of people with large families, and I think we should not interfere with the manner in which that money will be spent by the heads of these households.
Mr. Larkin
It would appear that the justification for this Bill is the present inequality in the distribution of wealth, and, therefore, the urge behind the Bill is only qualified by the question as to who is to have the spending of the family income. Does the Minister want to tell me that there is any justification for his statement that someone is trying to undermine the main purpose behind the Bill, just because there is some criticism as to who, in a family, should have the spending of this money? Does he not know that certain people are grossly incompetent when it comes to the handling of money, and that it is only in very few cases where the mother of a family will be found to be incompetent in the handling of money when it comes to taking care of her children? A mother will fight for her children. Why not, since she has brought those children into the world? Even in the case of families with a large income, it is generally left to the mother to deal with the matter of housekeeping expenses. Even in the case of men who are not married, they generally turn the money over to their housekeeper when it comes to a matter of dealing with household expenses. Now, the only effect of this Bill will be that you are increasing the family budget by a certain amount—some people may think that the amount should be larger—but, at any rate, the general feeling in the world to-day is that the mother should get an adequate wage for the work that she does: that the mother is entitled to a wage just as the father is entitled to his wage. It would appear to me that we have been too long impressed by this "father complex", as I might call it. I have known of cases of men earning £4 or £5 a week—men with large families— handing £1 a week over to the wife and spending the rest on themselves. Now, in such a case, there is the question of finding out to whom this money should be paid—whether the mother of the family, the housekeeper, the guardian, or the sister of the man concerned, as the case may be. The only question to be determined there is who is the proper person to draw the money. I understand that the Minister has agreed that that should be left optional, and, to that extent, I am quite satisfied with this provision.
I think that I can claim the honour of having put the suggestion before the Minister that this money should be paid to the mothers instead of to the fathers of families, but I have heard arguments here to-day which would lead one to believe that this would lead to a more costly administration of the Bill, and surely that argument should not be put forward here in connection with this measure?
That is not the question that is at issue here.
I am sure that every Deputy in the House, no matter to what Party he belongs, would agree that this money should be made payable to the mother as the head of the household. There is no doubt that the mother is the chief parent in any family and that she has to bear 90 per cent. of the responsibility for the rearing of the family. There may be some cases where the mother might not be a proper person to be entrusted with the spending of such money, but they would be very rare cases, and therefore I would ask the Minister to give way to what appears to me to be the general voice of the House and make this money payable to the mothers. It is all very well to say that this is only a supplement to the income of the family, and that it is not proposed to say who should have the deciding voice in the spending of that money, but I think that the mother is the best person to whom such money should be given, because she knows where it is most needed and how best it can be spent; and the half-a-crown, if made payable to the mother, would probably be just as good as 5/- if it were made payable to the father—in most cases, at any rate. I think the Minister should seriously consider that. We are not denying the fact that the father is the head of the household; we are only pointing out that the mother is better able to use the money to its best effect. Therefore, I would ask the Minister to consider this matter seriously, and to make this money payable to the mother, where it is practicable to do so.
This is an issue upon which most Deputies have personal rather than Party views. I want to line up with those who favour paying the allowance to the father. He is the head of the household and the head of the family. One would imagine, from some of the speeches that have been made here, that he was the enemy of the family. I regard the father as the natural head of the family, and as the person upon whom the responsibility for maintaining the family devolves. If modern thought in respect of the family is represented by the speeches made in this House, then I prefer to be old-fashioned and believe that in Ireland the father displays a loyalty and fidelity to the family which is probably unequalled in any other country. Heavens, do we not know that 10,000 fathers have emigrated and gone to work in Britain, under intolerable conditions in many cases, in order to sustain their wives and children? Although they were willing to leave their wives and children to get work in bombed cities in Britain, we think they have so little regard for their families that we will not trust them with an allowance of 2/6 or 5/- a week. I think the whole approach to this question has been wrong. In the Bill, there is a provision to pay the father, and it is rather extraordinary if the Legislature were to enact and declare to the country, and to the world, that in Ireland we could not dream of paying family allowances to fathers, because they were spendthrifts and could not be relied upon to devote the money to the benefit of their families.
That point was not made.
Deputy Donnellan cannot be on the side of the mother and the father. The position is that the father is the natural bread-winner. It would be just as logical to say that an employer should be compelled to pay wages to a wife instead of to an employee as to say that the State should pay 2/6 or 5/- weekly to the mother because the father could not be relied upon to spend the money properly. Deputy Cosgrave stated that the woman was the person who managed the domestic expenditure. That is true, but it is because of the father's loyalty to the family when he says: "Here, Mary; go and shop; you are the wisest person to shop." If Mary spends the money, it is only because John, being a good husband, provided the necessary means. If John goes home on Friday or Saturday nights and gives Mary the weekly allowance, and if he did not fail for five or ten years, I do not imagine he will be a reckless fellow when he gets this 2/6 or 5/- from the State. I do not imagine he will go to many race meetings, to many cabarets, or even go to the Gresham Hotel on Saturday nights on that amount.
My view in relation to such a change may be old-fashioned, but I prefer to be old-fashioned and to give the father what is due to him. I have still sufficient faith in the father to believe that he will use the money for the benefit of his wife and family. Other members of this Party may not favour that view, but this is not a Party or a national issue. I suppose it is more or less a psychological issue. Personally, in view of what is involved, I prefer to see the father getting the money, because I am satisfied that we have in Ireland some of the most faithful and best type of husbands to be found in the world.
I would rather line up on the side of paying the allowance to the father. After all we have not yet deposed him from that position in this country. I think what the Minister should aim at is to have the utmost flexibility as to whom payments should be made. Deputy Larkin mentioned one case, but nobody could be under any misapprehension as to whom payments should be made in that instance. If the scheme is sufficiently flexible, an application in such a case could ensure that payment would be made direct to the wife. That should end the matter. There are undoubtedly bad fathers, but they are not in the majority.
On the Second Stage I expressed a mild preference for giving the allowance to the mother. It is not a point of national importance. I think Deputy Donnellan made a point which enabled Deputy Norton to jump on him for doing so. That is the old gag. When Deputy Donnellan's skin gets a little thicker, and when he becomes more of a professional politician than he is now, he will take these things in good part and discover that they do not carry much weight one way or another. I do not think this is a matter to which much importance is attached. I suppose there are circumstances in which, where a father is living a part from his family, it would be desirable to pay the allowance to the mother. I understand that Deputy Cosgrave stated that ordinarily we associated a mother with her children. There is a certain amount of force in that. When children are young and are truly children in the ordinary accepted sense, there seems to be a peculiar nexus between themselves and the mother, but when they reach adolescence at a later stage the father comes more into the picture. While it is not a matter to get excited about, I think it would be a pleasant gesture to make payment to the mother. I do not think that fathers in Ireland would regard that as a reflection on them.
However, if Deputy Norton is so sensitive about it and says that it would constitute a reflection, I do not think we should press the matter. It is prefectly true that in 99 per cent. of cases fathers who get the 2/6 will pass it on to the mother to be used to the best advantage. I do not believe anybody had it in mind that there was going to be any desperate evil resulting if the money was handed to the father rather than to the mother. I rather fancy that those who wanted to pay the mother would be actuated by some desire to pay a mild tribute to motherhood. In the vast majority of cases the money will be used for the benefit of the children, and an attempt to legislate for exceptional cases is always bound to fail. A bad father in this country is unquestionably an exception, therefore let us not be motivated to legislate to provide for that exception. If there was any strong feeling on the subject I should not oppose giving the allowance to the mother but, in view of the depth of feeling expressed on this question by Deputy Norton, I should not like to hurt his feelings for all the money in the world.
I have rather mixed feelings on this question but I must say that the remarks of Deputy Norton rather led me to the view that this money should be paid to the mother. The bad father may not be very common but I fear that there are in this country a number of heads of households who do not look after their children. Deputy Norton knows that in the country the onus is usually thrown on the mother to provide for the household out of whatever income is received. She has to do that every Saturday night, either out of her husbands earnings or as a result of begging. The percentage of bad fathers in this country may be rather small but I feel that the Minister ought to accept this proposal and have the amount paid to the mother. That would cast no slur on the father because it is generally accepted amongst small farmers, cottiers and people of that description that the mother must provide the necessaries of life. She pays the bills, and sometimes has to incur debts. I think, therefore, it would be no slur on the father of the household if these allowances were paid to the mother. If any exception be taken to that course, it can be pointed out that there are in small towns and villages in rural Ireland a number of heads of households who do not even support their wives properly.
If this Bill is to be any help, it should be a help to those who have to provide the necessaries of life for their children. Although, as I say, the vast majority of fathers fulfil their obligations in respect to their children, there is quite a big minority who do not and who are content to throw that onus on the mother. By paying these couple of half-crowns to the mother her hardships would be alleviated, because in many cases the onus falls on the mother to provide for the family all the week. The father, perhaps, does not bother his head. He goes to the "pub." with the best intentions in the world on Saturday night, perhaps with the intention of spending 2/6 when really he will spend 10/-. If he gets the 2/6 provided for his children in this Bill he will spend it there also.
May I point out to the Dáil that apart from the provision in Section 20, which enables the father to arrange that the payment will in fact be made to some other member of the household, there is a provision in sub-section (5) of this section which enables the Minister for Industry and Commerce administering the Bill, where he is satisfied that a person entitled to a children's allowance has neglected the children, to direct that the payment be made to some other person? If the Minister is satisfied that the head of a family is in fact neglecting the children the Minister can direct that the payment be made "to such person as the Minister may think fit".
Where will the Minister get that information?
It will come from any of the sources from which such information usually comes. The sub-section refers to persons in mental homes as well as to persons in relation to whom information may come from a parish priest or from anybody who has an obligation to report such matters——
Will the Minister take the recommendation of parish priests in matters like that?
I will not say that I shall take the recommendation of the parish priest, but if he wrote that such a course was desirable his suggestion would be investigated and the necessary order made if it were thought fit to do so.
Suppose the parish priest wrote that the father was not capable of looking after the children, would the Minister not then make the allowance to the mother?
If it were found on investigation that such was the case, yes.
Before the Minister gives that undertaking I would ask him to reflect somewhat. To find a man in rural Ireland guilty of neglecting his family is a very serious thing.
Quite so.
There is a process of law which enables certain public officers to bring any person who abandons his family before a court and have him dealt with. He has an opportunity there of explaining any superficial appearance of neglecting his family. It sounds obvious that if a man neglects his family the parish priest may know of it, but it is not so obvious as it seems. I should be very long sorry if the Minister, simply because he got a message from the parish priest——
That is the point I want to make. I would not accept anybody's certificate without investigation.
I should be very long sorry, simply because he got a message from the parish priest and sent down an inspector to investigate, that he, there and then, would assume to himself the duty of determining whether a man was in fact guilty of the grave crime of neglecting his family. I think we should be very slow to put that slur on a man living in rural Ireland. If a man is neglecting his family to the extent that you cannot entrust him with the family resources, then steps should be taken to have him brought before a court. There he would have an opportunity of making his defence before a judicial person who could determine whether he was recalcitrant or not.
The Deputy will appreciate that circumstances may arise which would require that some such power should exist. I remember that in relation to the rationing scheme we had quite a problem in dealing with persons suffering from a certain mild form of mental derangement. From time to time that form has the peculiarity that it urges them to tear up papers. It is a form of derangement which does not involve certification or locking these people up in an asylum, but it created obvious difficulties in the rationing scheme, and we had to arrange that the ration books of these individuals should be given to somebody else. A similar problem arises in this case to deal with that type of person. As well, you have the person who is a foolish father, and it is therefore necessary to have some such power as is contained in this section.
I do not complain of the Minister having that power. I am merely anxious to sound a warning against what I seem to sense Deputy Donnellan was leading the Minister up to when he asked if the Minister received a letter from a parish priest and sent down an inspector who found that a person was not looking after his family, would he make the payment to the mother. I want the Minister to be careful in that case. It is a very grave decision to take. Once the Minister takes that decision it is a reflection on the father, either that he is half daft, that he is a "drunk" or a rascal. You are injuring not only the father but his family in coming to that decision. Deputy Donnellan knows how sensitive people are about any suggestion of lunacy being in their family. You do not want to mark out the father of a big family as being half daft nor do you want to mark him as being a drunken and disreputable father, at whose children other children can point the finger of scorn. I quite agree that occasions may arise when some exceptional step will be necessary, but we should not lightly brand a father as being incapable of looking after his children. Whereas it might not be a big sensation in urban areas, in rural Ireland it would be quite a nine days' wonder if a family were picked out and the allowance given to the mother because of some charge made against the father.
The Deputy will understand that in every parish there will be a substantial number of cases in which, as a family arrangement, the mother will receive the payment.
I have no hesitation in leaving the matter to the discretion of the Minister provided he is not misled at this stage into believing this is a thing that should be dealt with cursorily in rural Ireland. It is a matter that should be approached with great circumspection.
My own personal view —I do not know whether I am expressing the views of my colleagues or not or whether their opinion is as strong as mine on the matter—is that we should not depart in the slightest from the principle that the father is the head of the family and entitled to receive the benefit obtainable under this Bill. If we were to depart from that principle in this case, we should be, for the first time, attacking the integrity of the family. That is my own belief. If we were to adopt that course in this Bill, we should be forced into doing the same thing in relation to benefits under other measures—food vouchers, payment of children's allowances under the Unemployment Assistance Act and so forth. I believe that, if we did this, we would have done something which we would always regret.
My reason for supporting this proposal is that in rural Ireland the heads of families are generally working on Saturday night, and may not have an opportunity to go to the post office and receive this money. Because of that, I think that arrangements should be made whereby the mother would be enabled to collect the money. In certain parts of rural Ireland, the father of a family might not go into town once a month. It is his wife who goes into town and provides for the family. For that reason, I support the proposal that the mother should be the person entitled to receive the money.
Deputy Heskin has raised the point which I intended to raise. In country districts, the mother is generally recognised as the financial head of the family. In the majority of families of farmers, and in almost all families of workers in the country, the money is passed to the mother to administer. It is the mother who goes into town to do the shopping. I have seen labourers' wives trudging along the roads with their baskets to bring out provisions for their families. If vouchers are to be issued, then the natural collector of the money, as the last speaker said, would be the mother. In the country, the mother is generally recognised as the budgetary head of the family.
Cannot she collect it under Section 20?
I shall come to that in a moment. Deputy Larkin spoke feelingly as to the position of the mother in the family, the way the children look up to her, and the way she looks after the children. I agree with the Deputy. I could not put the matter as feelingly as he did, as I am not a father myself. Whatever good is in the children is generally obtained from the teaching of the mother. In the country, she is looked upon as the teacher of the children and their provider. She has, as a rule, more interest in the children's welfare than the father has. Deputy Ryan spoke of beggars. I do not say that the Irish are, as a rule, beggars, but has any Deputy received many supplications on behalf of hungry families from the fathers of these families? Many approaches have been made to me on behalf of poor families, and in every case the approach was made by the mother, who came up sometimes in the darkness of the night because she did not want her neighbours to know her position. The father may have the same feelings, but he has not the moral courage of the mother, who takes steps to provide for the children. I think that most people in rural Ireland will agree that the mother would be the best custodian of the small dole we are providing for the children. Deputy Norton said that the Minister had made provision in this connection. Deputy Dillon referred to the dangerous provision——
That is a different provision.
The Minister stated that there was provision in the Bill whereby, if one parent was unsatisfactory, the other could be substituted.
Apart from what the Minister may do, the father may nominate, as a domestic arrangement, the mother or any other member of the family to receive the benefit.
But if he does not and if he is a "bad hat"? Some mothers are, of course, "bad hats", but, if we were to take a census, I think the fathers would be in the majority in that respect.
It all depends on the standard you set.
The Minister has a protecting clause, that if representations are made that the father is not a proper person to receive this money, it can be given to the mother. Deputy Dillon says that that power should be exercised very carefully in the country. I agree. But I say to the Minister that it will be exercised very carefully because, until the man has actually degraded himself, no representations will reach the Minister. Until the father has reached the stage that the whole parish is agreed that he should not be allowed to receive the money, no representations will reach the Minister. That would be the stage at which the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children would be entitled to take action. When the father is a moderately bad "hat" there will be no approach to the Minister. Having listened to the debate, I would throw my weight in on behalf of the mothers, while making no aspersion on the fathers, generally. If a census were taken in rural Ireland, the majority would vote for the mother receiving whatever benefit is given under this Bill.
Each of us is the son of a "mother machree" and the hand that rocks the cradle rules the world. Let us thank our mothers.
This is a serious matter. It is generally recognised that the family is the most important organisation in the country. If we were by law to do anything to interfere with that organisation, the result would be seriously dangerous. The father is recognised by the Church and everybody else as the head of the family and if we, by an act of this House, lower his dignity in any way the time may come when he might be inclined to say that, as the family is receiving an allowance of 2/6 or 5/-, they might do their best to live on that. His responsibility would become less and less. Payment direct to the father is the first and foremost thing. There is machinery here to decide whether he is utilising that money properly or not. That machinery can be used and its use would not mean the lowering of the dignity of the majority of fathers.
If we say here that the fathers are not fit to have this 2/6 or 5/-, as it is suspected they may use it for drink or for some other incorrect purpose, we are lowering the dignity of the head of the family. That would tend to break up family life and the moment we set off on that expedition we will do irreparable damage. There are ample ways under the Bill of discovering whether a father is capable or safe to handle this money. I am quite sure the Minister has experience enough in the administration of rationing schemes to find out the best means of doing that, without doing any great damage to the dignity of the father. The law at present recognises the father as responsible, and the moment we say that he is not the responsible individual, we do very serious damage.
Deputy O'Reilly says that the suggested amendment is lowering the dignity of the father. Would he not consider, for a change, raising the dignity of the mother? That seems to be the principle embodied in this amendment and one I wish to call attention to. As far as I can see, it is not a question as to whether the mothers or the fathers are the more responsible persons or whether more damage may be done by the fathers than by the mothers; it is merely a question, as the Minister says, of bringing in a new definition into the Bill as to who is head of the family. The law recognises the father as the head because he is the bread-winner.
Mr. Larkin
It is the British law.
It is our law, too—it may be British or Irish, but it still exists. As we all know, the responsible persons, in the majority of cases, so far as the children are concerned, are the mothers. All the income brought in by the father is brought in as the result of his duty when he takes on a certain responsibility. He has a variety of possibilities, in our particular way of life, of going out and earning a livelihood for himself and the family; and it is quite right that he should have the duty and responsibility of maintaining the family. But the key, the anchor and the bedrock of the family is not the father but the mother, even in the best families where the father is carrying out all his duties and responsibilities. It is basically the mother who should receive the first consideration, because she is the person who has the care of the children.
Many Deputies seem to take a superficial view of this point because within the Bill there is a provision which enables the Minister, in exceptional cases, to make payment to the mother instead of to the father. Deputies seem to think that everything is rectified by that, but that is not the case. Everyone knows well that there are many families where it would be impossible for the investigating officers or anyone else to prove that the father is not carrying out his duties to his family in a legal manner; although within the family he may not be carrying out his duties as a father. I do not wish to go into details of those cases as it may appear that I am weighting the balance against the father. In many families the income is brought in by the father and he decides how much of it he will allocate to the upkeep of the family. On ordinary lawful grounds, no objection can be made to that, but that man as a father may not be carrying out his responsibility according to the means he has available.
From that point of view, and from the point of view that we are dealing here with a measure that is intended specifically for the benefit of the children, because of the burden the children place upon the family, I consider that the mother comes closest to the children. She has the problem week by week of dealing with whatever money is handed over by the father, whether it is large or small, whether it is the rightful amount or not. The money this State is about to provide should be added to the money she receives for the care of the children.
We have many forms of social legislation, we have a Constitution and we have various views and principles as to the family; but never yet have we recognised the rôle of the woman and the mother in the family and given her due credit. I think it would be a good departure in this instance if we recognised—whatever may be the legal rights of the father and whatever his standing in relation to the family and society as a whole—that the mother is the bedrock of the family. I think that recognition is a long time overdue and that we should enshrine that principle in this Bill. It will not affect the other measures the Minister has referred to and the legal position will still be there. In so far as the welfare of the children is concerned, the primary person to whom this money should be paid is the mother. The other provisions which remain in the Bill and which allow the Minister to adjust the payment according to the circumstances of the case can be used in the case of mothers who are neglecting their duty. The mothers are connected so much with the family that we should recognise that the foundation of a family is essentially the mother and the children for whom she cares.
There are two points I wish to make. The Minister comes from a Department which administers money to persons entitled to draw it by statute, principally through insurance. He does not like to interrupt that. That is part and parcel of the whole meaning of the Department, so far as the work of social administration is concerned. The second point is that the Minister says his proposal is that the father should receive the payment. There is nothing in the Bill disclosing the fact that the father is entitled to it: whoever is maintaining the children is the person who has the right to make the claim. If the mother brings in 21/- a week as against 20/- brought in by the father, the mother would be the person to make the claim. The Bill is neutral in so far as it applies to either the father or the mother making the claim.
That is true.
To my mind, the very fact of this Bill being called a Children's Allowances Bill is reason enough why the payments should be made to the mother. Everybody will agree that during childhood the mother is the person who has most to do with the children. From the very day they are born until they are 14 and 15 years, she is constantly in touch with them. In the West of Ireland and all through rural Ireland, it is the recognised rule that the mothers do the shopping and provide the food and clothing for the children. If this is really a Children's Allowances Bill, that is reason enough for the allowance being paid to the parent who is responsible and who provides these things. Apart from that, I think such payment would be a gesture that is due to the good mothers of the country. The Dáil should decree that this allowance be paid to them for the reasons I have stated. That is not alone my view, but the view of my Party, representing the various constituencies throughout rural Ireland.
Will the Deputy report progress?
I move to report progress.
Progress reported, the Committee to sit again.