Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 28 May 1974

Vol. 273 No. 1

Social Welfare Bill, 1974 : Second Stage.

Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Social Welfare (Mr. Cluskey)

I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

The need for this Bill arises from the proposal that title to children's allowance under the Children's Allowances Acts should be vested in the mother of the child rather than in the father as at present. This will be done by amendment of the normal residence rules under the Children's Allowances Acts, but as a result it will be necessary to ensure that there will be no change in the existing position regarding the payment of increases of benefit, pension or assistance in respect of qualified dependent children under the other social welfare schemes which at present is also governed by the children's allowances rules. I hope that the explanatory memorandum circulated with the Bill will help Deputies to understand more readily the provisions of the Bill, which are of a somewhat technical nature.

As I have said, title to children's allowance is at present vested in the child's father and this has been the position since the commencement of the scheme in 1944. In the great majority—about 85 per cent—of cases the fathers have, in fact, nominated the mothers to receive the allowances but convincing representations have been made to me that the mothers should have title to this allowance in their own right. The report of the Commission on the Status of Women also made recommendations to this effect. This is the position in many other countries, including Britain, and I am satisfied that we should do likewise.

The normal residence rules made under the Children's Allowances Acts determine with whom a child is to be regarded as normally resident, and accordingly with whom title to the children's allowance rests. These rules will be amended to provide that a child shall be regarded as being normally resident with his mother in the first instance thus vesting title to the allowance in her. The existing rules, however, while specifically made for the purpose of children's allowances have also been applied by statute to the determination of the normal residence of qualified children under the other social insurance and assistance schemes.

It is necessary to ensure, when the children's allowances rules are amended, that the position regarding the payment of increases of benefit, pension or assistance in respect of such children, where the beneficiary would usually be the father rather than the mother, is not disturbed. Otherwise the father could not be paid the increases in respect of the children. The amended normal residence rules to be made under the Children's Allowances Acts will, therefore, in future be applied only for the purposes of the children's allowances scheme and new regulations for determining the normal residence of children for the purposes of the social insurance schemes will be made under powers provided in this Bill.

These regulations will, with some minor amendments, follow the lines of the existing normal residence rules, and in that way the position regarding the payment of increases of benefit in respect of qualified children will remain unchanged. The Bill provides that these regulations will also apply in determining the normal residence of children for the purposes of the social assistance schemes other than the children's allowances scheme. As in the case of the benefit schemes, therefore, there will be no change in regard to the payment of increases of assistance in respect of children.

There are two provisions in the Bill designed to simplify matters so far as existing payments of children's allowances are concerned when the title is vested in the mother. It would obviously be unreasonable to require the 300,000 or so mothers who have been nominated by the fathers to receive the allowance to make fresh claims for the allowances in their own right. The Bill proposes to treat them as having made the original claims and thus the allowances can continue to be paid to them without interruption.

The second provision deals with those existing claims where the father has not nominated the mother and is receiving the allowance himself. Under the amended normal residence rules which it is proposed to make, the allowance would in these cases become payable to the mother. It is realised, however, that in many cases the mother would prefer that payment to the father should continue and normally she would do this by nominating the father as payee. To avoid the necessity for such formal nomination in these cases the Bill provides that unless the mother otherwise elects, the father will be regarded as having been nominated to the mother and the allowance will continue to be paid to him. The mother will, of course, remain the person entitled to the allowance and if she later elects to receive payment it will be made to her as of right. In the case of future claims, payment of the allowance will automatically be made to the mother unless she nominates the father or some other person to receive it.

I have much pleasure in recommending this Bill to Dáil Éireann for speedy and favourable consideration.

Mr. Faulkner

The Children's Allowances Act was first introduced in 1944. It was a most progressive measure in its time and, in fact, this was one of the first countries in which a Children's Allowance Act was introduced. Over the years it has been amended on a number of occasions, each time enlarging on the scope of the original Act for the benefit of the children of this country, improving the amounts paid, bringing more and more age groups within its ambit. Now another change has been introduced which we all welcome, that is, the granting of title to children's allowances under the Children's Allowances Act, which is presently vested in the father of the child, to the mother.

In the context of the social thinking throughout the world in 1944, as I have said, the Children's Allowances Act was a very progressive measures. I doubt whether, in the context of that time, anybody would have thought of giving title to the allowances to the mother, and the changes made in the social welfare structure in recent years show that, even in a very short space of time, there has been very considerable advancement made in social thinking.

When I was Minister for Education I judged the efficacy of any changes that I contemplated in the educational system by the manner in which these changes improved the system for the benefit of the child. I recognised that there were many persons and organisations who had a vested interest in education—and when I speak of vested interest here I speak of it in the very best sense — such as parents, teachers, managers, religious, and so on. But, while I recognised their rights and their duties in the field of education, having taken full cognisance of their views, I finally determined how I should proceed on what I believed to be the best interests of the child. The system was there, in my view, for the benefit of the child and not the child for the benefit of the system.

Likewise, in dealing with children's allowances the interests of the child must come first and while we can argue, as it were, as to which of the parents should have title to the allowance we must base our decisions on what is best for the child. The children's allowance, as the name implies, was introduced for the benefit of children. I feel that perhaps this point was not properly understood by the Government when they introduced the claw-back arrangement related to the children's allowance in their first budget and their action in reversing this decision in their most recent budget is a tribute to our effective opposition to it. Where children's allowances are concerned cognisance must be taken of the best interest of the children.

We on this side of the House agree with and support the change being made in this Bill. We can all agree that because of her peculiarly close relationship with the child the mother is in the vast majority of cases the person who should have entitlement to the allowance. The change proposed in this Bill conforms with the social norms which are operating in this country, norms which assign to the mother the general day-to-day responsibility for providing the physiological and psychological needs of the children. It is, in fact, paying respect to the role of the mother in Irish life.

It is a fact that two-thirds of Irish mothers spend all of their time in child rearing activities for children under school age, while the fathers spend an average of 50 hours a week away from home engaged in employment, mothers are responsible for the general running of the house. They perform the function of providing food, clothing, and so on, for the family unit. They are more available in terms of time and location to present the children's allowance coupon at the post office.

Another very important aspect of this matter is the fact that the mother is the best guarantee that the money will be put to the best use. The large numbers of the male population who engage in social drinking and the statistical finding that 11 per cent of the total Irish income is spent on alcoholic drink are factors which cannot be ignored. Statistics prove that the mother is much less frequently responsible than the father for the break-up of the home or for the neglect of the family.

Perhaps one of the most important aspects of this Bill is that it is helping to eliminate in some way the second class citizen status assigned to women who are specially engaged in one of the most important social functions, namely, child rearing. We hear much these days of equality between men and women. Those who speak of equality sometimes tend to confuse it with similarity. Instead of simply giving equality to women there are areas where women should have special rights and women should have these rights particularly in relation to the family. Where the State provides a specific amount of money for the purpose of helping the family, such as the children's allowance, it is only right that the mother should have entitlement to it.

Of course, we know from the figures given by the Parliamentary Secretary today that the practical effect of this Bill in relation to the actual receipt of the money will be relatively small because, as the Parliamentary Secretary stated in reply to questions to me today, approximately 90 per cent of the mothers are already drawing the children's allowance. This is not, however, the basic consideration.

I should like to inquire of the Parliamentary Secretary why it is not stated unequivocally in the Bill that the title to the children's allowance is vested in the mother. I take it that the Minister proposes to make regulations to this effect but could it not be taken from the fact that the title of the mother to the allowance is not provided in the Bill that the Minister could by regulation reverse the intention in the Bill at a later date?

I wonder if this legislation would have been necessary were it not for the fact that the normal residence of children in respect of increases of benefit, pension or assistance is determined by the Children's Allowance (Amendment) Act, 1946 and the normal residence regulations under that Act. Nowhere in the Bill is it spelt out that the mother shall be the qualified person under the Act. It would, therefore, appear that this right could be taken away at the whim of a Minister in the future.

The point I should like to make here is that when the Minister draws up the new regulations in relation to the Children's Allowance Act he will also be drawing up regulations which will relate to the payment of benefit, assistance, and so on and I should like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary if it should happen that somebody decided at some future date to change the situation, for example, to vest the right in the father, would it be necessary to bring in new legislation before the House?

Section 3 subsection (3) of the original Act states that the child will be regarded as being maintained "by the person mentioned in whichever of the following subparagraphs is applicable", the first being where the child normally resides with his father, the father and where the child normally resides with his stepfather, the stepfather. In other words, there is a priority situation written into the Act.

What I am concerned with is, when new regulations are made will it be necessary to bring in a Bill in the case of anyone wishing to change that situation? The Parliamentary Secretary has pointed out in his speech that in Britain the mother is entitled at present to draw the children's allowance in her own right. Quite recently proposals were put forward by the British Government in relation to tax changes which would have resulted in the father becoming entitled again to the children's allowance. All I am really concerned with is that we should ensure that if such proposals were suggested here at least the matter would have to come before the House.

There are, of course, cases where the mother by reason of mental illness, mental handicap, alcoholism or other disability may be unfit to discharge her duties. In such circumstances obviously if the best use is to be made of the money in the interests of the children it would be necessary to give title to the children's allowance to the father or some other suitable person. I should like to know whether provision would be made in the regulations so that somebody other than the mother in such circumstances would have title. I know that provision was made in the previous regulations in respect of the mother having the title in circumstances somewhat similar to those I have outlined. There are also cases where the mother is known for her lack of attention to and care of the children and where she is known to have no sense of financial responsibility. I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to tell us what he proposes to do in such circumstances to ensure that the children benefit from the money paid by the State. I do not think this has been catered for. I accept that there would be quite considerable difficulty in relation to it but I should like to know whether the Parliamentary Secretary has any ideas on this aspect.

In Part III the general regulations of 1946, in respect of payment of children's allowance, section 10 subsection (3) reads:

The Minister may, whenever he thinks fit, withdraw his consent to a nomination under the regulations and in such case the person nominated shall on receipt of notice of such withdrawal send the Minister the allowance book issued to him.

Would the Parliamentary Secretary let me know in what circumstances he would consider the withdrawal of the nomination?

In a situation where the mother might be regarded as unfit to handle the allowance is there any way in which the Parliamentary Secretary can ensure that the money will be made available in such a way as to benefit the child?

I should like to raise a legal point here and ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether the word "him" in section 5 subsection (1) of the Children's Allowances (Amendment) Act, 1946 has a legal bearing or can be interpreted in law as "her".

The Parliamentary Secretary pointed out in a speech he made a short time ago that there are 300,000 cases where the father has nominated the mother to receive the allowance. He pointed out earlier today that approximately 90 per cent of the fathers have nominated the mothers to receive the allowance. This is, of course, the vast majority of cases. It is a recognition not only by the father but by society in general that the mother is best suited to receive the children's allowance. Therefore, this Bill, in effect, is recognising legally what is already the norm in practice. We are aware that in quite a number of the cases where the father has not nominated the mother but has retained the entitlement, the money drawn, to put it mildly, is not used in the best interests of the children but is very often spent on drink or gambling. In such instances the mother cannot get the money from the father nor can she see to it that the money is properly spent. We need, therefore, to have a care in relation to the nomination of the father by the mother because in such circumstances the father will be most anxious to hold on to the money and will endeavour, through every means in his power, to ensure that he is nominated even to the extent possibly at times of using physical violence. I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to take note of this in preparing the regulations.

In view of what I have said here I am somewhat perturbed in relation to subsection (2) of section 9. Section 9 (1) reads:

Where, immediately before the commencement of this Act, the mother or step-mother of a qualified child was in receipt of a children's allowance in respect of that child, having been nominated in accordance with regulations made under the Social Welfare (Children's Allowances) Acts, 1944 to 1973, to receive the allowance, she shall on becoming the qualified person in respect of that child be treated as having made the claim for that allowance.

She would then become the qualified person. I am very much in agreement with this but section 9 (2) reads:

Where, immediately before the commencement of this Act, a person who was qualified for a children's allowance in respect of a qualified child had not so nominated the mother or step-mother of the child to receive the allowance, that person if he ceases to be a qualified person at the commencement of this Act shall be treated as having been so nominated by the qualified person to receive the allowance unless and until the qualified person otherwise elects.

I feel that the mother has got to opt in rather than opt out. For administrative purposes I would accept that the proposal in the Bill would be the simplest thing because, obviously, there would be no difficulty in ascertaining the mothers who are nominated but there would be some difficulty in finding out exactly how many mothers were not nominated. I agree that there would be some difficulty but when I find that only 10 per cent of mothers are not nominated, I think it would be very well worth while finding out the situation in relation to the mothers concerned and to see that they automatically become entitled to the allowance. I would strongly urge the Parliamentary Secretary to look into this matter with a view to seeking a solution. I have already pointed out that quite a number of fathers who retain the entitlement to the allowance squander the money and will endeavour to retain the right to receive the money. This section is making it much easier for them because the father immediately becomes the nominated person and it will be only with considerable difficulty that the mother will be able, in practice, to assert her rights. If this happens the whole principle underlying the Bill will be frustrated and we will be left with the shadow rather than the substance. There will, of course, be other ways in which it will be possible to frustrate the objectives of this Bill. Where a father, who is presently squandering the money, is forced by circumstances to allow his wife to take over her rights in accordance with the provisions of the Bill. He can quite possibly reduce her housekeeping money by an amount similar to the allowance each week. While he gives the appearance of accepting the principle in this Bill he will, in fact, frustrate its practical application.

I do not expect what I am about to suggest can be done in this Bill but while we are endeavouring in a relatively small way to grant the mother what is her right and, particularly taking into account her attention to the needs of the children, I wonder if it would be possible to allow her the money in respect of children under the social assistance schemes. I expect there would be a legal problem in relation to the benefit schemes in that the beneficiary is a contributor but he is not a contributor in the assistance cases, as in the case of children's allowances. It might be invidious to differentiate between social assistance schemes and social benefit schemes but if we regard it as desirable and right to vest the title to children's allowances under the Children's Allowances Acts in the mother then it would appear to me to be a logical step to vest the title to other forms of children's allowances in the mother, where this is legally possible. All the arguments we have put forward, social and otherwise, in favour of the present measure are equally applicable in the other cases I have mentioned.

As the Parliamentary Secretary pointed out, in perhaps different words, the apparent complexity of this Bill, where the object is simply to vest title to children's allowances under the Children's Allowances Acts in the mother rather than the father, arises from the fact that the normal residence of children, in respect of whom increases of benefit, pension or assistance are paid, is determined by the Children's Allowances (Amendment) Act, 1946, and the normal residence rules made under this Act. It is intended that there should be no change in the existing position in regard to entitlement to increases in respect of these schemes and the various social welfare payments. The Parliamentary Secretary stated it is intended to leave the regulations stand as they presently exist in respect of the social welfare services except for a few relatively minor changes.

Rule 3 of the Social Welfare Children's Allowances Normal Residence Rules 1967, states that a qualified child, who is resident with one only of the persons mentioned in rule 2, shall be regarded as normally residing with that person and with no other person provided, where that person is the mother, who is not a widow or a married woman living apart from her husband, that this rule shall not apply in respect of the child unless the mother so elects and in the absence of such election the person with whom the child shall be regarded as normally residing shall be determined according to rule 7. That means that the child shall be regarded as normally residing with the head of the household. I suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary, when he is drawing up the new rules, that he gives entitlement to children's allowances in this instance to the mother and leaves it open to her to nominate the head of the house if she so wishes. This is another instance where it is much more desirable that the mother should have the entitlement conferred on her by law with the right to opt out rather than the present position that she must claim the right or otherwise that it automatically devolves on the other person.

I take it, from my understanding of the Bill, that, even where the contribution towards a child's upkeep in an institution is made by the father, the entitlement to children's allowances will be the mother's. It is more necessary in these days of everincreasing price rises that the best possible use should be made of children's allowances. In times of rapid inflation only those who have families appreciate the great financial problems involved. In such circumstances it is important that the mother should be the qualified person to receive children's allowances. As I have already pointed out in 90 per cent of cases the mother already receives the allowance.

The main reason I welcome the Bill, and perhaps the most important aspect of it, is that it is an acknowledgement of the mother's right. There will always be problems in respect of the use made of the money. Where there is harmony in the home it matters little in whom the title is vested but where there is not harmony there are problems and difficulties, no matter which parent is vested with the right. In this House we can only do our utmost to ensure that in the end the greatest possible benefit will accrue to the child. I would again like to state that I welcome the Bill.

Mr. B. Desmond

May I at the outset, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, say how pleased we are to see you back in full harness after your recent illness. I welcome this Bill and I congratulate the Parliamentary Secretary for introducing it. I sat for three years on the Opposition benches, from 1969 to 1972, and in many parliamentary questions and Estimate debates I sought the introduction of this measure. It is a particular pleasure to see that the Parliamentary Secretary has this afternoon introduced this socially progressive measure. The Government in their 14-point programme indicated it was their intention to remove those discriminatory aspects in social legislation which penalised women in society and discriminated against them. This Bill is a substantial step in that direction.

I am certain this socially progressive measure will receive widespread public support. It has been pointed out that for the past 30 years, since 1944, this anomalous position persisted. There has been no social justification whatsoever for it apart from the fact that this is a male-dominated Parliamentary Assembly, and I suppose it can be said, in fairness, we have a male-dominated departmental attitude. We also have a society which certainly could not even devise a system over 30 years to trust the mother of a child with children's allowances. We have certainly rectified a grave wrong here. I do not think we deserve any great commendation, but the Parliamentary Secretary most certainly deserves the thanks of all for taking this step of considerable significance.

This change lessens in no way, of course, the joint responsibility of parents. It in no way diminishes their responsibility. What it does ensure is that the rights of the mother from the point of view of the maintenance of the children are effectively safeguarded.

We are spending at the rate of £43 million a year on children's allowances. The rate has increased substantially in the last two years. In the last two budgets many additional millions have been added to children's allowances and these allowances now represent a substantial segment of social expenditure. I would suggest that there should be some research, a social cost/benefit analysis, into the expenditure of this £43 million. As we know, there is no relativity with income because, by and large, these allowances are paid unrelated to income. This may sound odd coming from a socialist, but I believe selectivity might be more sharply analysed from the point of view of these allowances. In making that approach we could achieve a more egalitarian system and this £43 million could possibly be more equitably spread if we had a different system. I do not say this in criticism of the Parliamentary Secretary. He has acted with commendable speed in introducing this change. When I was on the Opposition benches I thought that this matter would require just a simple change. I now appreciate that it is a fairly complex matter and I commend the Parliamentary Secretary and his officials for dealing so effectively with the matter in such a short space of time.

Not alone do I believe that there should be some selectivity but I also believe that there should be a special study made of these allowances relative to large families. Families with more than three children should have matters like these weighted in their favour. There should be positive discrimination in the case of such families as there should be positive discrimination in the case of single parent families.

I appreciate that some of my comments may be outside the scope of a Second Reading debate. I believe, however, that they are well within the scope of the social perspective of the Parliamentary Secretary. The fact that he is a colleague of mine in no way inhibits me from making these comments. I have had numerous approaches made to me in this particular matter and I am pleased that we, in the National Coalition Government, have now introduced this particular measure. I certainly welcome this Bill.

Mr. Tunney

Before making my very brief contribution I should like to say how happy I am to see the Leas-Cheann Comhairle occupying the Chair once more and I hope he will continue to enjoy the best of health.

I share with other Deputies a certain happiness at the appearance of this measure. Unlike Deputy Desmond, I do not regard it as an exceptionally revolutionary measure. I understand the difference is merely a matter of some 10 per cent. However, that does not take away from the need there was for this measure or from the welcome the House has accorded to it.

Children's allowances has always— shall I say—fascinated me. I have given a good deal of thought to the whole concept of children's allowances. Today these allowances are taken as an indicator of the respect society generally has for the mother and the housewife, but my personal opinion is that we have not gone any way near the limit to which children's allowances should go. Discussion on that will be for another day. In the matter of regulations governing the payment of children's allowances I trust the Chair will accept from me the relevance of a reference to the manner in which these are paid. I know that a fair number of mothers would not be waiting on children's allowances.

On the other hand, in my area the history of children's allowance payments to mothers is one of moving to the nearest post office on a certain day at the end of the month. If we are concerned here about a mother's right to have the allowances paid to her, I suggest that the Parliamentary Secretary would consider my submission that we should also be concerned about the manner in which the payments are made.

In the city of Dublin, especially on the perimeter, we know that on children's allowances day there is a situation in which nothing is added to the dignity of the unfortunate lady who in the winter months particularly has to queue up for one and a half hours before the money is paid to her. It can be said that this is one of the problems attached to the administration of the scheme. On this occasion I am commenting on what this measure presumably would do—recognise the position and the dignity of the mother in question. However, anybody who travels through my constituency—indeed, I would add parts of the Parliamentary Secretary's constituency—on children's allowances day will be convinced that the manner of payment offends very much in that respect. I am wondering what will happen in my constituency, a fast developing area with hundreds of families from the Parliamentary Secretary's and Deputy O'Brien's constituencies moving in——

Mr. Cluskey

Jimmy Tully will rectify it.

Mr. Tunney

What will happen next winter when those ladies report to collect their children's allowances? They will have travelled one and a half miles to Finglas village to a small post office where there will be hundreds of other ladies before them out on the street waiting.

Mr. Coogan

It has been the same way for years.

Mr. Tunney

The fact that something has been the same way for years should not prevent our changing it.

Mr. Coogan

You were there for 16 years and you should have done it.

Mr. Tunney

I hope that my few remarks will not fall on deaf ears. I accept the Parliamentary Secretary's interest in this matter. I assume he shares my concern about the existing position and the anticipated position in a few months and that he will visualise the situation of the lady whom we have freed from other botherations attached to the payment of children's allowances. I am not suggesting that the problem has only recently arisen. If Deputy Coogan or anyone else wants to have a look at the records, he will see that I addressed a question on this to the Minister for Social Welfare to have it rectified.

Mr. Coogan

It fell on deaf ears.

Mr. Tunney

I am quite sure some representions were made to the Department of Posts and Telegraphs on whether a system of payment could be introduced which would relieve the ladies in question of the hardships attending the collection of benefits which are their statutory right. I do not think there is any other area where people exercising their rights are forced to suffer the same hardship. I hope that all sides of the House will accept the position as I have indicated it. I am not saying it is one which manifests itself in Taylor's Hill in Galway or in Foxrock in Dublin. I can speak only of the areas I am familiar with. The position of those ladies on what we call children's allowances day is utterly degrading. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will accept this as a commentary which warrants his consideration.

Mr. Coogan

I do not intend to delay the House. I welcome this overdue tidying-up measure. I know there are many other improvements which should be made. Like other speakers, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, I am delighted to see you back in the Chair and I hope you will be fit to keep us in order for many a day.

The last speaker referred to what he called "those ladies". There seemed to be a touch of sarcasm — that it is only the socially deprived who qualify for children's allowances. I see them driving up in their Mercedes to collect them. It is good to know that in future the applicant will be the mother. Incidentally, this may ease the situation of the unmarried mother. There is one type of applicant I see throughout the length and breadth of the country who qualify in a big way. I speak of the travelling people, the itinerant class. We see great abuses in the different towns and villages once a month when they come in to collect. In the evening one sees the conduct brought on by the money they have collected for their children. I feel that instead of money the benefits should be given in kind.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

This is not within the scope of the Bill.

Mr. Coogan

This is supposed to be of benefit to children. As I see it, some people seem to make a great occasion of this for wasting the money paid for that purpose. I should like to see it used properly and that the Department see that it is used properly. It is a sad occasion when one sees, down the next laneway from the office where the money has been collected——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy is moving away from a very narrow technical Bill.

Mr. Coogan

You have crowds of children there, in a cart, left out in inclement weather while the parents go off to collect this money and spend it uselessly. I respectfully repeat that the purpose was that this be for the benefit of the children.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy will have to seek another occasion on which to advert to that aspect of the matter.

Mr. Coogan

I should like to put the idea into the Parliamentary Secretary's head at this stage.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy has been doing that.

Mr. Coogan

There is grave abuse of the way in which this money is being spent. I repeat that the purpose was for the benefit of children. I refer to this group blessed, if I may use the word, by very large families and where very large payments have been subjected to great abuse.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy has now made his point.

Mr. Coogan

I should like to develop it a little further if the Chair will allow me.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

This is a narrow, technical Bill and we cannot allow a discussion on children's allowances.

Mr. Coogan

What I am suggesting is that, instead of granting this in cash, it be given in kind; perhaps by some sort of an arrangement whereby food could be collected.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy will have another occasion on which to discuss that aspect of the matter.

Mr. Coogan

I welcome this Bill. It is a step away from the Bill being flouted around the country. I hope it will be improved further in regard to the specific points I have raised.

Mr. Callanan

My remarks will be very brief indeed. Before putting these forward I want to join with others in saying how delighted I am to see the Leas-Cheann Comhairle looking so well here today.

I welcome this Bill which is a step forward in social thinking. I am a very cautious man but, being a socialist, I welcome it, as I welcome all anti-discriminatory measures. I feel, however, we need to be very careful in having clauses which will safeguard the persons for whom the allowances were intended. In this case the allowances were intended for the benefit of the children. Up to recent years the parent more likely to be wrong or act wrongly was the father, but there will be the exceptional case and it is about this that I am worried. I am concerned that there is not some clause in the Bill to safeguard the children if either parent is remiss. From now on the mother will be the person entitled to draw the allowances. At one time very few of the opposite sex could be found to be under the influence of drink but, unfortunately, we have to admit that there are cases to be found in the country today. Families break up and while fathers are responsible for this in a good many cases, the mothers are responsible in others. Whoever is responsible, I hold there should be a safeguarding clause in this Bill that the money which should be given to the children is drawn by whichever parent appears to be the more responsible. Generally speaking the mother is responsible but, if she should fall down in her job, I should like to see a clause inserted that a father could withdraw that money and ensure that it is spent for the benefit of the children.

There should be some type of arbitration in exceptional cases. This is the only reservation I have about the Bill. There should be some clause inserted to ensure that an impartial adjudicator be appointed in cases where it is known that the money is not being spent for the benefit of the children. I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to insert some type of clause to ensure that, in the event of a mother not being competent of making proper use of her children's allowances, the father be in a position to withdraw the money and see that it is spent on the children.

I should like to endorse what Deputy Tunney said. Some system should be devised, in largely populated areas, to eliminate people having to queue up for long periods for their children's allowances. The fact that it may have been an arrangement in existence for years is no excuse. We are moving forward every day; we have more respect for human beings and, when people have to obtain allowances of any kind, they should not be inconvenienced in the process. It might be an idea to have more days on which such allowances could be collected and devise a system under which people could come in alphabetical order. Of course, I am talking about the larger populated areas. It does not affect the country at all.

I agree with the Chair that it is not entirely relevant to the Bill. The Bill refers to the person who is to collect the allowance. The Bill gives authority to the mother whom I think is the correct person. I shall conclude by asking the Parliamentary Secretary to consider inserting a clause in the Bill to the effect that where a mother might not be responsible, the authority to collect be transferred because, if that is not done, one is on dangerous ground. Were I bringing in a Bill certainly I would give the mother first preference but I would guard against the ten per cent, or perhaps five per cent, of cases where she might not be so responsible. There should be some clause inserted as a safeguard against that contingency.

Mr. O'Brien

I should like to take this opportunity of welcoming back the Leas-Cheann Comhairle after his illness. Like other speakers, I endorse this Bill. One wonders why it has taken this length of time to make such a change. It was drafted originally in the Children's Allowances Bill, 1944. I presume that reflected the thinking of the time when women definitely were regarded as second class citizens and as not worthy or responsible to collect the princely half-crowns being paid at that time.

I must congratulate the Parliamentary Secretary on the many changes he has made in his Department during his short time in office. As a result of the increases granted by the Government over the last 15 months, the children's allowances have become a real income. Because of this I welcome this Bill even more so. As backbench Deputies of this Government, we are committed to looking at all social welfare benefits with a view to making increases wherever necessary. The children's allowance scheme has a major priority, particularly in the times in which we live. The mother is the person who has the tremendous responsibility of rearing the family and it is right that the allowance be paid to her. No matter what legislation is introduced, there will always be some anomaly.

Deputy Tunney said this legislation was not revolutionary and I agree with him. His party should have taken these steps long ago. This legislation highlights the difference between this side of the House and the Opposition. The Government are aware of the anomalies that exist and they have taken steps to rectify some of these matters in the Anti-Discrimination Bill.

There has been much talk about the numbers of people who queue for payment of these benefits. Perhaps they should be cashed at banks and the Department might investigate this aspect. It is a problem in built-up areas on the first Tuesday of each month. People should be facilitated so that the benefits may be cashed without delay.

The increase in the allowance has made it all the more necessary that the mother should be the person who receives it. Where there is a breakdown in the family arrangements some system should be devised to ensure that the money is spent for the benefit of the child. With regard to the rights of women, in future legislation the married woman who stays at home to care for her family should have an allowance in her own right so that she will have greater independence.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy is moving away from the Bill.

Mr. O'Brien

I apologise, but I thought I should make that point when we were speaking about the rights of women. I support this Bill and I compliment the Parliamentary Secretary for putting it before us so quickly. He has carried out considerable work in his Department and I look forward to many more improvements in our social welfare provisions.

Mr. Moore

Even a male Chauvinist would not oppose the Bill and the fact that 90 per cent of children's allowances have been paid to the mother shows what a magnanimous being is the Irish father. More than 30 years ago we established the principle of children's allowances and each successive Government increased the amount. It is right that the allowances should be paid to the mothers because they will use them in the interests of the children.

Can the Parliamentary Secretary tell us if many of these allowances are not being claimed? Is some money left in a fund which could be distributed to more needy cases? Children's allowances are paid through the local post office. I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to arrange that all other social welfare benefits be paid through the post office for the duration of the Dublin bus strike. Many people cannot get to the employment exchanges to draw their social welfare allowances and if children's allowances were paid through the employment exchanges many families would have to go without.

I can recall many years ago a man in the city who campaigned almost in the days of Parnell for children's allowances. Unfortunately he did not live to see the day in 1944 when Fianna Fáil introduced the scheme. We can claim credit that we led the way in these islands in this matter. Other welfare states followed, but we are glad we set the good example.

I know the Parliamentary Secretary is anxious to improve all aspects of the scheme. He may have some information, not known to Members of this House or to the general public, of certain very large families who deserve more than the ordinary benefits in the general social welfare code. Perhaps on Committee Stage he could widen the Bill by amendment to include these people? More than ever, we recognise the great importance of the family as the basic unit in the State and the nation has a duty——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That cannot be done in this Bill. It is too narrow and technical.

Mr. Moore

I appreciate that but the Parliamentary Secretary might look at the full social welfare code with regard to children's allowances and see what improvements might be made. This Bill is short. I do not know if it is necessary as only 10 per cent of the people will be covered but we accept it if the Government think it is necessary. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will consider the points I have mentioned, especially regarding the payment of social welfare benefits through post offices for the duration of the Dublin bus strike.

Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Social Welfare (Mr. Cluskey)

I am glad the Bill has been so widely welcomed by the Deputies who have contributed in the debate. However, I sincerely regret that this Bill was used as a vehicle by Deputy Coogan to attack a class of person because of the possible misbehaviour of a small group in that class. There are other people in our society whose behaviour leaves much to be desired and who have not the justification of the conditions in which they live, and the socially deprived way in which they have been forced to live, as have the itinerants. I should like to make that clear as far as I am concerned.

Mr. Coogan

On a point of order, I was referring to abuses. The Parliamentary Secretary can bear out that in country areas——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That is not a point of order.

Mr. Coogan

There is a point of disorder I was referring to.

Mr. Cluskey

Deputy Faulkner stated that social thinking has changed very considerably between 1944, when the children's allowances scheme was first introduced, and 1974. That is undoubtedly true. I accept the point Deputy Faulkner made, that in 1944 it would not have been widely accepted that the mother should have been the person to receive the children's allowances. However, he went on to say that the claw-back which was introduced in last year's budget in relation to children's allowances may have been a mistake. I must agree with the Deputy when he says that. That is the difference between the Fianna Fáil administration and the present one. We learned our mistake in a year. Deputy Faulkner had 29 years to learn his and did not even get around to it at the end of the 29 years. However unacceptable it might have been and against the tide of social thinking in 1944 that the mother was not the rightful recipient of children's allowances, it definitely did not prevail up to the end of the 1960s and the early 1970s. It is not too bad making mistakes if you have both the wisdom and the courage to acknowledge them and to rectify them and I think that is the significant difference between the two administrations.

Most Deputies mentioned the fact that 85 per cent of fathers had already signed over to their wives the right to draw the children's allowances. In reply to a question today by Deputy Faulkner I said the actual figure of mothers receiving children's allowances is 90 per cent, because apart from the 85 per cent of husbands who have signed over, there are widows, deserted wives and unmarried mothers. Therefore, we are really dealing with 10 per cent.

An impression has been created in some quarters that all the fathers in Ireland are villains, that they are all out whooping it up and drinking the children's allowances while the poor unfortunate mother sitting at home does not get a halfpenny. That is very unfair to the fathers in so far as the figures show there is only 10 per cent of mothers who do not receive the children's allowances even in present circumstances and that out of the 10 per cent of fathers who retain the right to draw the children's allowances there is a very considerable percentage who do so purely for convenience and it is a mutually acceptable thing. It is not that he wants the money but the wife might be in bad health, or in rural areas it might not be convenient for the wife to go in to collect the children's allowances. The husband might of necessity, in connection with other matters, be a frequent visitor to the vicinity of the post office.

The vast majority of Irish fathers in this respect live up to their responsibilities but, unfortunately, there is the minority who do not live up to their responsibilities and who will not hand it over to the mother and the child or children do not derive any benefit from children's allowances. It is to rectify that situation that this measures is being introduced. In fairness also it should be said that organised bodies such as AIM who have been advocating this change readily acknowledge that the vast majority of fathers do live up to their responsibilities, but a fairly significant proportion of the 10 per cent do not.

Deputy Faulkner asked what happens if the mother does not live up to her responsibilities. Like everything else, it is not all black and white and, unfortunately, there are mothers who if they receive the children's allowances will not live up to their responsibilities and it might be better in these cases if the father was paid the children's allowances. I can assure Deputies that in the event of that situation arising, the Minister can at his discretion, pay the money not only to the father but to any person who, in his opinion, is most suited to receive it for the benefit of the child.

Quite a number of issues were raised and Deputy Tunney and Deputy Moore referred to the very large queues in certain areas on children's allowance days. As a Dublin Deputy, I know this occurs and that it causes some inconvenience to the recipients. Deputy Faulkner is one of the few Deputies on that side of the House who has a social conscience and possibly there are other Fianna Fáil Deputies who have exercised their social conscience over the last 17 or 18 years, but the collective social conscience of Fianna Fáil has been in a very deep coma over the last 15 or 16 years. I am very glad that the Holy Ghost has now descended on them collectively and opened their eyes to all the social ills that exist and have existed over all those years.

I am not suggesting for one moment that this is a revolutionary step. It is something that has been accepted in several countries in Europe over the last number of years. It is not the be all and end all of the rights of mothers or, indeed, of the rights of women, but it is a step, and it is a step that was there to be taken all through those years, and a very obvious step that could have been taken by Fianna Fáil at least during the 1960s and early 1970s.

The queues at post offices and all the other social ills that have now been revealed were all there during those years. Not only were they there but in order to give Fianna Fáil some assistance in the matter we brought them to their attention time and time again. We got no action on them but if there is one thing that the change in administration has done it has brought a wider and greater awareness of the many social ills and social injustices that exist.

Deputies were kind enough to say that a considerable amount had been done in the field of social welfare over the past 16 or 17 months. A reasonable amount has been done, but the Tánaiste would be the first to acknowledge that a tremendous amount more needs to be done and it will not be possible for us to do it all over-night. There is an accumulation of things that are obvious and the investigation, examination and implementation of some of the things that need to be done that are not so obvious will take some considerable time.

I am glad that this Bill has now come to the House. I personally was not aware that it would present as many complications in getting it before the House as it did. It appeared to me in my ignorance to be quite a straightforward matter but it did present some serious difficult drafting problems. I wish to acknowledge my thanks to the staff of the Department of Social Welfare and to the Parliamentary draftsmen. Now that we have the Bill this far, while it will not eliminate all the problems of some of these poor unfortunate women, I hope it will go some of the way towards alleviating some of the difficulties they find themselves in. As Deputy Faulkner so rightly pointed out, with all the legislation in the world, unless there is agreement and harmony between a couple, it is very difficult if not impossible through legislation fully to safeguard the the interests and welfare of the children of our society.

Question put and agreed to.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Next Stage?

Mr. Cluskey

Could we have the next Stage now?

Mr. Faulkner

I would be willing to agree to the next Stage being taken now providing the Parliamentary Secretary would examine more deeply some of the points I have made particularly in relation to the point I made that the mother's title is not stated in the Bill although I do recognise that it probably will be stated in the regulations which will be made. I shall not go into that now until I deal with it on Committee Stage. There is also the point that I made in relation to the mother where she is not already nominated and does not, therefore, automatically become the person entitled to draw the allowance. If the Parliamentary Secretary will consider these points, I will agree that the Committee Stage be taken now.

Mr. Cluskey

It is the normal residence regulation which governs the payment of the childrens' allowance. Once the child is recognised through the regulations as being normally resident with the mother, that gives her entitlement.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

If we start on Committee Stage, then points can be argued. It is agreed to take the Committee Stage now?

Agreed to take remaining Stages today.