Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 6 Feb 1946

Vol. 99 No. 4

Children's Allowances (Amendment) Bill, 1946—Second Stage.

I move that the Bill be now read a Second Time. I am aware that this Bill, which is of a somewhat technical nature, is probably one which Deputies find it difficult to interpret, and it was in anticipation of such difficulty that I circulated with the Bill an explanatory memorandum. The Bill deals largely with matters of administration in connection with the children's allowances scheme. Deputies will remember that, when that scheme was under discussion in the Dáil on the submission of the Children's Allowances Act, 1944, the House was concerned with the efficiency of the proposed methods of administration. I explained then the reasons which led to the adoption of certain devices which seemed likely to minimise the difficulties which members of the public would have in understanding their rights and obligations under the scheme, and, at the same time, reduce the staffing problems that were likely to arise in connection with it.

Under the original scheme, payment of children's allowances to qualified applicants was made upon the basis of six monthly periods. Qualifying dates were fixed, and on the basis of the family circumstances upon these qualifying dates the amount of the allowance was paid during the ensuing payment period on a flat rate basis without regard to changes in the family circumstances until the next qualifying date. I mentioned then the staff problem that would arise if the same qualifying dates and the same payment periods were fixed for the whole country. In such an event the task of adjudicating on claims and of issuing vouchers for the payment of allowances would become particularly heavy at certain periods of the year, while the administrative work to be done in the remaining periods would be light, thus making the economical use of staff a matter of some difficulty, or necessitating, what most Deputies would regard as undesirable, the periodical employment of a large number of temporary officials.

In the course of the period which has elapsed since the inauguration of the scheme experience has been gained, and that experience has suggested that there are changes which might usefully be made. We are avoiding the concentration of the work of administering the scheme into certain limited periods of the year by the device of providing in the Bill for a division of applicants into groups on a regional basis. Three regions were fixed, and different qualifying dates and different payment periods were fixed for each of these groups thus, to some extent, spreading the administrative work over the whole year. That system of administration, on the basis of regional areas, had certain advantages other than those which I have indicated already. It was devised mainly as an administrative measure to solve a staff problem, but it was recognised that it would also be beneficial to persons claiming children's allowances if, in each locality, the same qualifying dates existed for all claimants and the same payment periods. Although the attention of claimants and beneficiaries under the scheme to their obligations, particularly the need to renew their claims at particular dates, is drawn by advertisements in the Press and by announcements over the radio, in practice, as most Deputies realise, the most effective method of getting these dates understood and obligations appreciated is to have them a matter of common knowledge in each locality. The adoption of uniform qualifying dates and of uniform payment periods for each region facilitated the administration of the scheme in a manner which would not have been possible if each individual applicant had a separate date for qualifying and a separate period during which payment might be made.

However, in the matter of administering the Act, as passed, the system of grouping claimants upon the basis of fixed regions determined by Order proved to be too rigid, nor did it entirely eliminate the problem associated with the economical use of staff which we had in mind when framing the scheme originally. The number of claimants in each of the regions proved, in the event, to be uniform, and the adoption of that particular device involved also quite elaborate provisions to deal with the cases of persons who transferred their residences from one region to another. There was also the very particular objection, to which expression was given during the course of the debates in the Dáil on the Bill, that the adoption of two qualifying dates in a particular year meant that, in certain cases, there would be an unduly long delay between the date upon which a family might become qualified to receive the children's allowance and the actual commencement of the payment of the allowance.

The original scheme, as I mentioned, involved two qualifying dates and two payment periods for each region. If the qualifying date for a particular region was the 1st May, a family which became qualified by the addition of a third child on the 1st April, would prove its entitlement to the allowance on the 1st May, and proceed to draw the allowance upon the basis of that entitlement for the six months from the 1st August, irrespective of changes in the family circumstances, until the next qualifying date, which would be 1st November. On the other hand, the family which did not qualify for the allowance until 1st June, or any date shortly after the qualifying date, could not become qualified under the scheme, or could not prove that it was qualified, until the next qualifying date on the 1st November, and would not be entitled to receive benefit until the payment period beginning on the 1st February. The change in the system of administration which it is now proposed to adopt, and for which this Bill provides, will go a long way to remove that objection.

It is, of course, practicable, as Deputies will understand, to adopt any system of grouping of applicants which would divide them into groups of more or less equal numbers. Conceivably, applicants could be grouped in alphabetical order or in numerical order, but as there are advantages in the regional system of grouping it is desired to retain it. This Bill will provide, however, only for grouping without specifying the basis of groups, or making it a legal obligation to have applicants grouped by area of residence. The intention is to maintain the regional system of grouping for the reasons I have indicated. By making it a statutory obligation, however, to have claimants grouped in groups of some kind, a greater degree of flexibility is introduced. Any drift of population from one region to another can be easily adjusted and, by the further device of taking power to alter the first payment period in individual cases, a much more free system of administration can be introduced, with considerable advantage to beneficiaries under the scheme. Instead of having the fixed areas with two qualifying dates for each area, and two payment periods for each area, we will have in future areas which can be varied from time to time if the occasion should arise and, by the device of taking power to alter the first payment period, it is possible to introduce a welcome innovation in so far as new entrants can be admitted into the scheme at any qualifying date for any area.

It will be understood that the problems of admitting new claimants into the scheme will offer much less difficulty under this new arrangement. There will be for new claimants, not merely two qualifying dates appropriate to the area in which they live, but six qualifying dates during the year and any new claimant can establish entitlement to a children's allowance at any one of those six dates. If the claimant is admitted as having a proper claim under the Act he will, of course, be put into the group to which he belongs according to the location of his residence but the duration of the first payment period of children's allowance to that claimant will be altered so as to make it conclude at the time at which the current payment period for that group concludes, so that, for subsequent payment periods, the new claimant will in fact have the same qualifying dates and the same payment periods as everyone else in the locality in which he resides. That change for the benefit of new claimants can, if this Bill is passed, be brought into operation on the 1st October this year.

That system of dealing with new claimants can be applied also to the case of persons moving from one area to another. Under the original Act, we had very complicated provisions to deal with the case of a person who moved from one area to another but, under this new system, all these old complicated regulations can be dispensed with and the case of a person moving from one area to another can be dealt with by the very simple method of altering the duration of the payment period next after the transfer so as to bring its conclusion into line with the conclusion of the current payment period for the new group area in which he will reside.

The advantages secured by that proposed change in the legislation are, therefore, first, this easier access to the scheme by new claimants, a much larger number of qualifying dates, so that there is not the same delay in admitting to the scheme a family that becomes newly qualified, and, on the other hand, a simplification of the administrative problems which arose in connection with the employment of staff for the operation of this scheme.

Another change which it is proposed to make relates to the qualification of the person claiming the allowance. Certain difficulties have arisen because in the Principal Act the basis of a claim for an allowance in respect of a child was that the claimant was maintaining the child. It is true that the Act was so framed as to make the fact that a child was resident with the claimant evidence that the child was being maintained by the claimant, and in the vast majority of cases it is, of course, true that the child resides with the person who is maintaining it. The fact that it is not universally true did, however, cause difficulties, as in cases where children were not living with their parents, even though one or both of the parents were alive, and certain people have failed to qualify for children's allowances on that account. It will help Deputies to understand the problem if I give an illustration: A child might be living with its grandparents on the qualifying date. There might in fact be no payment of any kind by the parents to the grandparents for the maintenance of the child, and the grandparent might claim a children's allowance in respect of the child on the ground that the grandparent was maintaining the child, proof of the fact being that the child was living with the grandparent. On the other hand, the child would ordinarily be regarded, and should ordinarily be regarded, as residing with the parents even though for reasons of family convenience or otherwise, the child was for a period residing with his grandparents. We are, therefore, proposing to take out of the Bill this condition of maintenance and to regard as entitlement to a claim for a children's allowance the question of residence only. Ordinarily a child will be regarded as residing with its parents even though it may at the qualifying date or for a temporary period, or otherwise, be actually living with some other relative, or elsewhere. The principle will, however, be to relate the child to the parent unless it is clearly shown that there is in fact no link whatever with the parental home. The advantage of that to the public is that in certain cases of larger families the full entitlement to a maximum children's allowance can be established by the parents, whereas in cases where housing difficulties and other problems had involved the breaking up of the family amongst relatives that entitlement to children's allowance at the maximum rate might not be capable of demonstration.

In order to simplify the problem of administration, it is proposed that the Minister for Industry and Commerce should have power to prescribe the rules which the deciding officers will operate in determining with whom a qualified child normally resides. I want to make it clear that these rules will be so framed as to make it clear that the decision must be that the child normally resides with its parents unless it can be adequately demonstrated by some claimant who is not the parent of the child that the link with the parental home is completely severed.

A further change which has been made will permit an Irish citizen to claim, even though he is not resident in the State on the qualifying date. As the law stood, the claimant had to be resident here on the qualifying date. The change will permit a claim to be made even though the parent is not resident here on the qualifying date and will operate to permit some other person to apply on behalf of the parent in the parent's absence.

There are some other minor changes which are designed to make more adequate the provision designed to ensure that a child will not be the subject of more than one allowance at the same time and to provide also that a child who is admitted to a reformatory or an industrial school after a qualifying date will cease to be regarded as qualified.

These amendments do not affect the principle of the original measure but they are all the outcome of the experience which has been gained in the operation of the principal measure since it was enacted. They were considered first of all in relation to the administrative problems that arose, and are designed to effect certain improvements in the operation of the measure which will be of benefit to the people of the country. I recommend that the Bill be adopted.

I think there is very little to be said on this matter. As the Minister has described it, it is a machinery measure to remove certain difficulties that there were in the original Act and to effect some further improvements. So far as I can see it must go a long way to simplify and make more regular the administrative work and, from the staff point of view, ensure a greater degree of economy. I think some of the new provisions are to be welcomed from the point of view of the applicants. For instance, instead of having two qualifying dates in a year, the Minister now proposes to have six. I am sure the House will also welcome the provision for grouping of applicants. We have the assurance of the Minister that the working of it will be simplified to make it more convenient from the administrative point of view. He still proposes, although grouping the applicants, to keep it on a regional basis. We, of course, support the measure and we appreciate that it will make the administration more flexible.

There is very little to be said on this Bill except that, in my opinion, there were a few flaws in the previous Bill that are not removed here. I have in mind the case of a woman and family who came from Great Britain during the emergency, while her husband is still resident in Great Britain. In many such cases, the husband is not able to maintain his wife and family in this country. This particular type of family is denied the children's allowance. In Section 5 (b) there is the provision—I wonder is it a slip on the part of the draftsman——

"On that date, three or more children who are qualified children normally reside with him".

I ask the Minister if that is deliberate?

"Him" embraces "her".

It applies to either?

In the case in question, where the husband resides in England, will the woman be entitled to the children's allowance?

If her husband is an Irish citizen.

Yes, I am speaking of a case where both are Irish.

In other words, she can get it now even if he is in England?

If he is an Irish citizen.

Was not that the case before this?

He had to be residing here.

Did you not get over the difficulty even when the husband was absent?

Deputy Blowick referred to a family that came here from Great Britain. That is a somewhat different problem from the case of a family whose breadwinner has gone to Great Britain. In the case of some families that came here the husband was an Irish citizen, but in the case of a person who is not an Irish citizen there must be two years' residence before entitlement to a children's allowance. In the case of an Irish citizen, provided his home is here and his children are here, the children's allowance can be paid, even though the husband is in Great Britain.

Have you not been paying in cases like that before this?

Yes, but the deciding officers had difficulty in deciding.

I am glad that point has been cleared up somewhat. To clear it up finally, I might say that the children in question were born in Great Britain. Must they reside two years in this country before they are qualified, although the mother is with them?

They must be ordinarily resident here.

Although both parents are Irish?

It was never intended that the children's allowance should be paid in respect of children coming here for a holiday, even though it might be for a period of six months or a year. The children's allowance is paid to families residing in this country. We had to discuss that particular aspect of it and it was discussed during the course of the debates here and in the Seanad—what were described as refugee children, children brought over here for safety purposes because of the war conditions in Great Britain. It was not intended that the children's allowance should be paid in respect of these children. It was only intended to pay it in respect of children ordinarily resident in this country.

That leaves the thing pretty much as it was. However, I shall leave it over until the Committee Stage. The other case I had in mind was mentioned by the Minister in the course of his opening speech. That is the case of people living in fairly backward places who are not familiar with the qualifying dates, etc. Quite a few cases were brought to my notice where parents were illiterate or, if not illiterate, were bordering on it, and where they were not aware of these things in the beginning. The result was that they were victimised. Perhaps that word may be a bit extreme to use, but they were definitely disqualified from getting the allowance for a certain period. I think that should not be the case. If officials in charge of a particular case like that find out that the family were definitely qualified and if they are satisfied that, through no fault of the parents but because of illiteracy, or the fact that they were living in a backward place, they did not make application in time, I think they should be given the full amount due to them. It seems queer that, because a person failed to fill up a form by a certain date, he should be denied the children's allowances due to him. That has happened in a few cases which have been brought to my notice. I took it up with the Minister's officials but nothing could be done about it as the law said they were deprived of it.

How long would the Deputy go back?

To the time when the children's allowances first came into operation.

How can you prove what the family circumstances were two years ago?

Surely if officials discover from the form sent in that a family were definitely qualified by residence and every other qualification and if they are satisfied, as I said, that it was due to the fact that the parents were illiterate or that they were living in a backward area or living, say, in a mountainous district where the nearest house is two miles away and had not the means of finding out these things, provision should be made to pay the allowances back to a certain date, as it was due to a mistake on the part of the parents.

In the main, this is a machinery measure and does not require much comment. I think that the amendments which the Minister has introduced in the parent Act will substantially improve the administration of that Act and make it a more flexible instrument, particularly in regard to the movement of claimants from one area to another and their immediate integration into the scheme of allowances applicable to the area to which they have moved. In that respect, I think the amendments proposed by the Minister are commendable. I am very glad the Minister has seen his way to remove the provision in the main Bill which necessitated the child being resident with the parent before the claimant was entitled to a children's allowance. In one case, the deciding officer decided that, since the children did not reside with the claimant, the claimant was not entitled to benefit; but the claimant happened to have the rather unhealthy job of rear gunner in a Lancaster bomber and was stationed in some eastern aerodrome. Quite obviously, in a case of that kind, he could not reside here to claim and the children could not reside with him. Therefore, the claimant's application was turned down. However, when the facts were brought to the notice of the Department, they realised the absurdity of maintaining a contention of that kind and the allowance was duly paid. The amendments which the Minister has made now will obviate such cases of that kind occurring in future.

While the Act was a complex piece of social legislation and one which, I hope, is only the beginning of many improvements in the same sphere and is but the first step in an extension of the scheme of children's allowances, I think that it has been administered, on the whole, with very considerable smoothness, which is a credit to those charged with the administration of the Act. I have had occasion, from time to time, to make representations to the Department about certain cases, most of which were complicated, but I have to say, to the credit of the officials concerned, that they made a very painstaking effort to make clear their point of view. That is a form of activity which I recommend to some other Departments, in charge of the Minister's colleagues. I think the Department has administered this very difficult Act with smoothness and efficiency. Whatever blemish may be there, in respect of the smallness of the allowance or the eligibility for pension, it is not their fault. I would place on record that the officials have administered a very difficult Act with smoothness and efficiency and there has not been the volume of complaint which might well be expected to arise out of an Act of such complexity as the Children's Allowances Act. I think the amendments which the Minister now proposes will make the administration move more smoothly than in the past and, if that position is reached, there will be very little cause to complain about the administration of the Act under the present Department.

I welcome the administrative changes which have been brought into the Bill. I am sorry that the Minister did not see his way to bring about also an administrative change in connection with income-tax payers. I would remind Deputies that, in this country to-day, the income-tax payers are not all confined to the wealthy classes, that there are many artisans and tradesmen who are now payers of income-tax. It is a pity that some arrangement could not be made by which there was a sort of offset of the amount they could claim for a child against the loss of the income-tax allowance for the third child.

In the first place, the income-tax payer labours under a disadvantage in connection with the third and subsequent children, under which he did not labour before this Act came in. Even leaving out of account his financial disability, which has come about as a result of the Act, he is put to a great deal more trouble in the collecting of the half-crown a week. I would be glad if the Minister could see some way to introduce a system whereby his payments and receipts could be netted in some form. I do not know if that is possible, but surely some arrangement could be made with the Department of Finance for that purpose.

I welcome this Bill also. I am not quite sure if the Minister has taken powers to deal with a case which came to my notice some few months ago, where an unfortunate family lost both father and mother within 18 months. There are six children, ranging from two years to 11 years of age, and through force of necessity they had to be divided up, as the estate was too small to maintain them. Nos. 1 and 2 went to live with A, Nos. 3 and 4 went to live with B, while Nos. 5 and 6 went to C. The unfortunate part of this case is that all of the children have been deprived of the children's allowance. I think that is a very unfair attitude even for officials of the Department, whom I have found to be very courteous and who facilitated me in every respect. When this matter was brought to their notice, they informed me that they had no powers to deal with the matter differently. I looked up the 1944 Act and could not find any reference there setting out the penalising of children who have been penalised already in a way that never can be redressed, that is, by the loss of both father and mother. Surely, it was never the intention of this House—and I am quite sure it was never the intention of the Minister— that, if the family had the misfortune to lose both father and mother, the State would say the children were no longer entitled to assistance from the State, since the parents were dead. Those were the simple facts of the case. I think it is only necessary to bring such a case to the notice of a sympathetic Minister, as the present Minister is, to put that matter right. Such an attitude was never the intention of the House. When this piece of beneficial Fianna Fáil legislation was passing through the Chamber, the boys of all the Parties were scrambling to get up on the band waggon. Even Deputy Dillon was tearing his nails to get on the band waggon when the Bill was passing through. I hope the Minister will make the position clear in regard to such cases as this, before this Bill gets its Final Reading.

Would it not be better to discuss this matter in the light of the Bill, rather than try, as Deputy Walsh tries, to work political propaganda out of it? That is not my intention now, and my only reply is that, when people are in a minority, they are not so strong as when they have a huge majority.

In the matter of the qualifying date, the change now is a very important one. Very often in the past 12 months in my constituency, Galway, some people who did not hear the announcement about the dates, and who have not got them into their heads yet, were deprived of this badly needed allowance. Of course, one could not blame the officials for that, as the Act was there. The great change, by the introduction of more qualifying dates, will mean a vast improvement. I join with Deputy Norton in congratulating the officials on the manner in which the Act was carried out within the past 12 months. In every way they did their best.

We have gained experience in regard to the Act, and there is one thing I am afraid has not been covered yet, namely, the case where the children of one family go in with friends.

I appeal to the Minister to introduce some provision for payment in such cases. I have one case in mind. A father died, and the mother went to England. The two children were left with their aunt. The aunt was the mother of two children also, and the result was that there were four children solely dependent on her. She was refused a children's allowance for two of the children. I might mention that the four children were under 16 years of age, and in the usual way two would qualify for the allowance. I ask the Minister seriously to consider making a change in this respect. Such an amendment would be very necessary. There are a good many cases of this kind in my own area, and I am sure in other parts of the country.

This measure has been brought in as a result of the experience gained in the administration of the Principal Act. In my own experience I have found, particularly in the rural areas, many cases of hardship, and, in fact, of injustice. This, I am sure, has also been experienced by the Department. As the law stands, it was not possible up to the present to deal with these cases satisfactorily, but now that the Minister is very substantially improving the machinery, I wonder if he will consider doing something on behalf of the people in the rural areas particularly. These people have to travel very long distances to the sub-post offices. I am sure the Minister, and indeed everyone in the House, will agree that many of these sub-post offices are administered by most inefficient people, simply because the Government will not pay sufficient wages so as to get efficient people around them. Many mistakes have occurred, with the result that poor people have been deprived of the allowance.

People who are entitled to 5/- or 7/6 a week often think that it is better to make the journey once every month or six weeks, and it happens very often that the slip put into the book to remind them is not seen in time. People who can afford to have a bank account never miss the bus. They get an indication by post from the Department which they complete the moment they get it, and thereby they will get every shilling to which they are entitled under the Act.

I would like the Minister, in consultation with his advisers, now that he has put his hand to the job, to improve the legislation still further by making some alteration so as to have a better method of administration. I think it should be possible to find a better method of notifying those people, particularly in the rural areas, rather than expect that they should be able to keep their eyes on the slip inserted somewhere in the middle of the book. I hope that the cases that have been the cause of complaint in the past will be remedied, and that every effort will be made to overcome such difficulties in the future.

The principle underlying this Bill, as Deputy Norton said, is to be commended. In the administration of major legislation such as this, steps will be taken by the Minister as soon as possible to come into the House and submit proposals calculated to benefit the people whom it is intended to benefit under the original Act. I think that is a very desirable procedure, more especially as the number of qualifying periods will be extended, and there will be less difficulty so far as the individual is concerned.

I rise to supplement the appeal made by several Deputies in respect of the applicants who fell down on the first application. There were a large number of them. References were made to the rural areas, but the same thing applies to the City of Dublin. I have some cases in mind where the first qualifying period went by the board, and the families suffered in consequence. Having regard to the short period that has elapsed since the operation of the Act, and the fact that the family circumstances are known, as from the first qualifying period, to the inspectors and the officials of the Department, I suggest that it would be very much appreciated by those concerned if the Minister would indicate that payment might be made in certain circumstances to those who failed to qualify in the first period. I do not know whether there would be a considerable amount involved, but the fact remains that the principle underlying that suggestion is sound.

I should like to mention the case of a widow who has two or three children under the required age. Suppose that the widow gets married again and has more children. Suppose that in all she has six children—two with the widow, two with the widower, and two by the second marriage. Would the six children come under this legislation?

A certain amount of praise has been given to the Minister and to his Department arising out of the introduction of this legislation. I suppose we all welcome it, but we should realise that it is machinery which the Government find themselves compelled to introduce following their experience with the Principal Act. I find that under this legislation not only will some of the cases that I have in mind be more easily dealt with but some of the cases that other Deputies have mentioned in the course of the debate will be more easily handled, because there is a wider discretionary power being taken by the Minister. It is peculiar that of the outstanding cases which I had in mind in which the applicants failed to qualify, one came under the Department of Industry and Commerce, and the other was dealt with by another Department altogether. Because of the rigid form in which machinery was set up when the Principal Act was passed, there was no loophole by which the Department of Industry and Commerce could remedy the defect.

I want to deal with one section, and I shall strike a note somewhat contrary to that struck by other Deputies. I refer to Section 5. The Minister dwelt upon that section somewhat briefly. He indicated that it is proposed to alter to some extent one of the qualifying bases so far as the Principal Act is concerned. It occurs to me that it is a question of changing the emphasis from that of maintenance to that of residence. It is not quite easy to discuss the matter at this stage because in sub-section (2) the Minister is being given power to make certain rules, and under these rules there may be a very wide or narrow divergence from the definitions in the Principal Act. The basis of our discussions in the debates on the Principal Act was acceptance of the fact that we are providing an allowance for the maintenance of the child as such rather than for the relief of the burdens based upon the parents. It seems to me that we should be slow to change the emphasis from maintenance to residence, and that, to some extent, the avoiding of the very pitfall which we are trying to bring about by this alteration may be offset by the creation of other pitfalls of equal or possibly even greater significance so far as the child is concerned.

I take it that our main concern in securing the payment of the allowance is to ensure that whatever sum is paid will be spent for the benefit of the particular child or children who qualify and I can quite envisage cases —it is not necessary to go into the point now; we can deal with it later— in which a particular person would qualify for payment and in which it would be very doubtful that the money would be expended to the advantage of the children. I do not know whether it would be possible on Committee Stage for the Minister to enter a little more fully into the lines along which his mind might run when drafting the rules, so that we might be a little clearer as to the change that will take place, but it does seem to me that the important thing which we should maintain is the principle on which we based the original Act, that is, of contributing to the welfare of the child and not to an increase for one or other parent for the advantage of that parent and not the advantage of the child or children. As I say, it is difficult to deal with it at the moment, but perhaps the Minister might keep it in mind when we come to the later stages of the Bill.

On that point, I stated in my opening remarks that in making rules under sub-section (2) (a) of Section 5 it would be my intention to place the emphasis upon the claim of the parent, that is to say, to relate the child to the parent, rather than to the person with whom the child might actually be residing on the qualifying date. In the original Act we used the term "maintenance" in order to determine the qualification of a claimant, but we endeavoured to devise a system under which the fact of maintenance would be proved by the fact of residence. That was unwise, as experience has shown, and led to a great number of conflicting claims. We have to stand on one foot or the other, it seems to me, if we are to get clear-cut administration.

The case I gave by way of illustration previously will serve here. A child normally residing with its parents, who are living, is, on the qualifying date, residing with a grandparent, and both the parent and grandparent claim a children's allowance in respect of that child—the parent on the ground that the child normally resides with him and the grandparent on the ground that the child is being maintained by him. As the law stood, conceivably the person maintaining the child, that is, the grandparent, might be able to sustain a claim. In the actual administration of the Act we tried to do what will be done under the new measure, that is, to support the claim of the parent with whom the child normally resides.

Would that not be subject to the assurance that the money would be used for the maintenance of the child?

We discussed that on the main Bill, and the principle adopted then was to assume that in fact the allowance would be so spent, until the contrary was shown. If the contrary is shown, there is power under the original Act to dispose of the allowance in some other manner so as to make sure that the benefit will go to the child. The particular case I have mentioned might not be so serious if both the parent and the grandparent could in fact sustain a claim for an allowance in respect of the total number of children residing with them; but clearly in that case, if the claim of the grandparent were admitted, there would be other cases when, because of the splitting up of a family between parents and grandparents, none might qualify, whereas, by the device of relating all the children to the parents and regarding them as being normally resident with the parents, and consequently qualifying the parent for an allowance, unless it is clearly shown that the link with the parent is finally and permanently broken, the parent will in fact be able to secure the highest rate of allowance practicable.

Some Deputies referred to cases in which people failed to secure the allowance because they did not apply on the commencement of the Act. I do not think we could go back on these cases. Something more than an application for an allowance is required The scheme provides that an application can be investigated, and it is not possible to proceed in the manner suggested by Deputy Blowick of regarding the facts stated in the application form as entitling a person to the allowance until they have been investigated. I do not say that every case is investigated, but wherever there is reason to believe that there may be some misstatement of fact, an investigation takes place, and the investigation may reveal that the actual person claiming is not the person entitled to claim, or that the number of children residing on the qualifying date was different from that stated. I think it is true to say that, in the period in which the Act has been in operation, we endeavoured so far as possible not to adhere to the strict letter of the regulations or to impose absolutely the dates prescribed for the making of applications; but once the qualifying date has passed and the process of issuing an allowance book is in progress, it is not possible to go back on any claims. Claims which come in at that stage have to be related to the next qualifying period; but one of the advantages of this change is that the next qualifying date will now be much nearer than it would have been under the old scheme.

Deputy O'Donell misunderstands the purport of the Bill, if his question was intended to be a serious question. The parentage of the children does not determine a claim to a family allowance. If the children are residing in the household, whether they are the progeny of the head of the household or of somebody else, provided that it is their home and they are normally resident there, a claim can be made in respect of them. Under the change being made here, an allowance will be paid in respect of every qualified family, provided the person claiming is an Irish citizen, or has been resident here for two years, even though the claimant himself may be absent from the country. That, I think, disposes of one case mentioned by Deputy Blowick. In the circumstances described by him, an allowance would be payable.

It is not so easy to deal with the case mentioned by Deputy Walsh. He has a Parliamentary question down about the case to which he refers—at least, I think it is the case to which he refers. In that case, the parents died and the home was broken up. Two of the six children went to live in one household; two in another; and two in a third. The children's allowance which was payable on the date upon which the last surviving parent died was distributed amongst the three households to which the children went for the balance of that payment period, but, when the next qualifying date arose, only one of the households to which these children had gone had other children, and consequently only from that household could a claim for a children's allowance be maintained. It was quite clear in that case that, because of the unfortunate circumstance of the death of both parents, the home had in fact been broken up, and the children who had formerly resided in that home are now, and will in future be, permanently resident in the new homes to which they have gone. Consequently, it is the circumstances in the new homes which determined whether the children's allowances were payable or not.

Assuming that the six children went to live with another family, would they be entitled?

Yes. It is the number of children over two and under 16 years of age in the household which determines the entitlement allowance. With regard to the case which was mentioned by Deputy Donnellan, I do not think that he has the facts right. As he stated the case the allowance would be payable. As I understood the Deputy the man parent died and the female parent abandoned the home and went to England, with the result that the children were permanently resident with another relative. In that case, the claim for the children's allowances could be made by the person maintaining the children if the circumstances of that home were such as to qualify that person. A fact which the Deputy may not have ascertained, and which may have disqualified the person with whom the children were residing, was a contribution to the maintenance of the children from the female parent in Great Britain.

That was the reply that was received from the Minister's Department, but such was not the case. Still they were disqualified.

If that was the circumstance of disqualification, then this Bill will change that because in future it is not the consideration of maintenance by a parent that will determine a claim but the actual fact of residence, of permanent residence in a new home. I do not know how to deal with the case of people who fail to repeat a claim, such a case as that mentioned by Deputy Pattison. It will be understood that in the case of new claimants, most of the difficulties have now passed except in the very odd case of a new claimant by the head of a family where a new child is born. In that case, he will now apply for a children's allowance when the child is born, at the time of the registration of the birth. That application will be related to the next qualifying date. There will, of course, be circumstances where families will become entitled to claim because the children of a relative are residing with them, but in the great majority of cases claims will arise because of a birth, and I should think that it will become the normal practice to make a claim simultaneously with the registration of the birth. In the case of persons who have already established their right to the children's allowance and who have been receiving the children's allowance, it is not necessary to continue to prove entitlement at six-monthly intervals, but in order to make sure that people do not inadvertently fail to make a repeat claim, there is inserted in the book of vouchers supplied to them a form to remind them, and on this form they make their repeat claim. We will do everything possible to prevent people losing their right to benefit by their own mistake. I think that we could not go much further than we have gone in order to ensure that people who have become entitled to the children's allowance, and who have been receiving it, will continue to receive it. The fact that a person may only go to the post office every six or eight weeks to draw the allowance and may on that account fail to note the form inserted in the book on which to make the repeat claim is possible, but I do not see what more we could do to avoid it except by means of the publicity which the Department undertakes from time to time.

Would the Minister not consider sending notice by post to people who cannot afford to have a bank account to repeat their claim? Such a notice is sent, I understand, to recipients of the children's allowance who have a bank account. Could not notice be sent by post to those poor people?

That is, in fact, what happens. In the book of vouchers which is sent out there is a form telling the person entitled to draw the allowance that he or she has to renew the claim at a certain date. This form is inserted in the book of vouchers so that, in fact, we send them notice by post.

Take the case of a poor person who is drawing 5/- a week. He may be living five or six miles from the nearest post office. He may not be able to attend at the post office on the date on which the claim should be stamped by the sub-postmaster. I think that if the Minister were to consult some of his advisers he would get some very illuminating information on this aspect of the administration of the scheme. It would not cost a great lot to send notice by post to some of those poor people.

Those people have a considerable number of weeks before they lose their right to make a repeat claim. I think it is only fair to assume that it is only in one individual case such a thing could happen. I think that a mistake of that kind could only be attributed to carelessness.

Why should there be a preferential method of notifying people who have a bank account? There should be the same method of notifying all citizens under the Act. Some of those poor people may not be alive to the fact that, in order to keep their claim alive, it should be repeated at a particular time.

I think that is misrepresentation.

I do not mean it that way.

The person who draws the allowance at the post office by means of vouchers gets a notification by post that a repeat claim must be made. There is a form inserted in the book of vouchers on which that claim is to be made.

If they are not in attendance at the post office at a certain date, the form in the book is not stamped and in that way it goes out of date. I have had some cases of that kind.

There is also the fact that there are 130,000 people drawing children's allowances by means of vouchers, whereas the number drawing otherwise is not more than 7,000. It would involve a substantial addition to the work of administration if we were required to send a second notice to each of the 130,000.

That does not justify preferential treatment.

Deputy Dockrell referred to the position of income-tax payers in relation to the scheme. I think that he will have to raise that matter with the Minister for Finance. So far as the children's allowances scheme is concerned, everyone is in exactly the same position and is entitled to the children's allowances provided, of course, they comply with the conditions laid down. As the Deputy knows, there is no means test. The point to which he referred arose out of the position that the Minister for Finance decided that simultaneously with the coming into operation of the Children's Allowances Act, allowances previously given in respect of income-tax should be modified so that persons in that class would not benefit financially. That was done under a Finance Act, and any modification of that provision would have to be made under a Finance Act.

Could it not be done by some inter-departmental arrangement between the Department of Finance and the Department of Industry and Commerce?

So far as I know there is no intention to change the position. It was decided to put persons in the income-tax-paying class in this position that they could get the children's allowance the same as anybody else. Whether, in fact, they claimed the children's allowance to which they were entitled, they were going to lose this concession which they enjoyed under the income-tax code.

Only a portion of it. I think there was a reduction in the income-tax allowance from £60 to £48.

In any event, that is a matter that is governed by the Finance Act.

My point was, could the income-tax payer not be deemed to be getting a proportion of what he used to get? I think that under the income-tax code the allowance, in the case of a third child, was £40. That meant that he was getting an allowance of 47/6. Now he is only getting 2/6 a week. Could there not be an arrangement between the Department of Finance and the Department of Industry and Commerce whereby a smaller income-tax allowance could be made? Where a person is paying income-tax twice a year there would be a saving of time in administration and a saving of time on the family if they could get their children's allowances by way of income-tax relief.

No. First of all, I would strongly oppose putting upon the Department of Industry and Commerce the obligation of segregating claimants into payers of income-tax and non-payers of income-tax. The Department is not concerned at all with the financial circumstances of the applicant; the only thing the Department has to take into account is the number of children residing with him. Secondly, I think the Revenue Commissioners would have strong objection in principle in giving to the Department of Industry and Commerce or anyone else a list of the names of persons paying income-tax. They would, I think, regard that as information confidential to themselves which should not be made generally available. Any other points that arise we could deal with on Committee.

I should like to ask the Minister what is the record amount drawn by any one family?

32/6 a week is the highest.

Could the Minister hold out any hope to those who do not reply in time? They are the poorest sections of the people.

A large number of those who did not apply in time did, in fact, receive the allowance if the delay was only a matter of some weeks, but once the payment period started, the payment could not be made retrospective.

What is the largest number of children in any one family?

I would require notice of that question.

Would the Minister say if it is in Tipperary?

I do not think so. The Minister ought to put up a cap for competition.

Question put and agreed to.
Committee Stage ordered for Wednesday, 13th February, 1946.
Top
Share