Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 28 May 1974

Vol. 273 No. 1

Social Welfare Bill, 1974 : Committee and Final Stages.

Sections 1 to 3, inclusive, agreed to.

SECTION 4.

Question proposed: "That section 4 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Faulkner

This is the section on which I can again raise the matter which the Parliamentary Secretary has referred to, that is, that there should be an unequivocal statement in the Bill that the title to the children's allowance is vested in the mother. As I have said, I realise that this will be done by regulation but as I have pointed out, the father is specified in the original Act as having the principal right. The circumstances in which others would have entitlement are also stated in that Act. We are making here what could be termed a fundamental change in that we are giving not only recognition to the woman's right but priority to women in this sphere and I would have thought that this should be written into the Bill. As the Bill stands, the change made here can be revoked at the whim of a Minister.

The complexity of this Bill has resulted from the fact that the regulations in relation to normal residence referred to much more than to the children's allowance but one set of regulations to be made under this Bill will refer only to the children's allowance. Because of the fact that the existing regulations refer to other social welfare benefits, the Bill had to be introduced. New regulations will apply only to children's allowance. Therefore, could a Minister make a change without further reference to the Dáil? I pointed to the position in Britain where certain changes in the taxation code would result in the father once again having the right to the children's allowance. Can a change be made by the Minister without reference to the Dáil?

Mr. Cluskey

The short answer to that is "yes" but I would like to point out that grave difficulties arose. I thought that to change the entitlement to the children's allowance from the father to the mother was a very simple operation and would involve coming to the House with a very simple amendment to existing legislation that would not be controversial and that it would not take much time to get it through. After the decision was made to transfer the entitlement to the mother and the matter was gone into by the officials it proved to be an exceptionally difficult operation because of the way the original legislation had been added to and because it involved all other social welfare payments in benefit and assistance. To divorce the children's allowance from that was a matter that caused legal and drafting difficulties.

I should just like to make this point: in principle I am not in any way reluctant to do what the Deputy suggests should be done but I would point out that it is the normal residence rule made under the Children's Allowance Acts which determines with whom the child is normally resident and it is the normal residence which confers the title to the payment and in the regulations to be made it will be recognised that the child is normally resident with the mother and that will make her totally and legally entitled to payment of the children's allowance. Nonetheless, the answer to the Deputy's question is "no", it would not be necessary for any future Minister to come before the Dáil to reverse that position. That is the factual situation but I think the Deputy would agree with me that he would be an extremely foolish and extremely courageous Minister who would come into the Dáil and suggest that the position should be reversed and that payment should be made to the father.

The Deputy quoted the new British proposals for a tax credit but they specifically provide for payment of the credit in relation to the children's allowance to the mother. While in theory the Deputy is making a valid point, that it would not be necessary for a future Minister to come before the House to reverse the decision to give the allowance to the mother, in practice that would never happen. If the Deputy persists with the point, as I have said, I have no objection in the world to that being included in the Bill if it is possible to do so and if it does not delay the passage of the Bill through the House so as to prevent the regulations being made before the new budgetary proposals are implemented, in July. If the Deputy cares to leave it with me that assurance I will have the matter examined further and if it is feasible it will be done in the Seanad. Would that be acceptable?

Mr. Faulkner

I would accept that. The Parliamentary Secretary does not have to tell me that the matter is complex because I have been going around for the past week with about ten volumes under my arm trying to follow the changes that were being made. The Parliamentary Secretary will recognise that there is a problem here. He has pointed out that in Britain in relation to the tax credit situation they have specified that the mother must be the recipient of children's allowances. Nevertheless, I am informed that there was a considerable outcry from the mothers. Possibly they did not understand it either. I will accept what the Parliamentary Secretary has said.

Question put and agreed to.

Sections 5 to 8, inclusive, agreed to.

SECTION 9.

Question proposed: "That section 9 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Faulkner

As I have already pointed out, I am somewhat concerned about the situation in relation to section 9 (2). It 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.

The Parliamentary Secretary has agreed with me that there are a certain number of that 10 per cent of fathers who do not make proper use of the children's allowance. They will be immediately regarded as being the nominated persons entitled to draw the allowance when this measure comes into operation. In those circumstances it will be very difficult for the mother to assert her rights because if the father is already misusing the money he will be anxious to continue to control the money and the mother, to get her rights, will have to make application. I can visualise that type of person trying to prevent the mother making application. I suggest that as only 10 per cent are involved it would be well worthwhile, though administratively awkward, to try to find out exactly who those mothers are and to decide that the mother would be the person who would be entitled to the money and the father would then have to make an effort to have himself nominated. This would mean that the mother would have some advantage, whereas the present position makes it easier for the father to retain the nomination because he is automatically nominated when the Act comes into operation. Because of the type of person we are dealing with here it would be worth considering.

Mr. Cluskey

I am in full sympathy with most of what the Deputy has said. In fact, it is the one part of the Bill to which I gave a great deal of thought because I saw the difficulties that could arise. After considering all aspects of the problem, it was decided that in the interests of the mother this was the best way to go about ensuring that these difficulties would not be presented to her. Of that 10 per cent of cases we do not know the circumstances or why the father is drawing it. In many cases it is purely by mutual agreement and there is no friction or tension in the home whatever. Also in that 10 per cent are cases where the mothers are dead and have been dead for some years. We have no details in the Department because the entitlement has always been the father's. We do not know whether the mother is alive or, if she is, whether she is living with the father and the children. We do not even know her name. We have absolutely no details about the mothers. We could acquire those details but it would necessitate writing to the father and if the father comes within the category Deputy Faulkner has described, and, unfortunately, some of them do, the repercussions of a query from the Department along those lines in that household would not be in the best interests of the mother. As soon as we initiate an investigation to find out the mother's name, whether she is resident with him, whether she is alive or not, if he is the type of man against whom we are trying to guard the mother very severe domestic repercussions could ensue. If we write to the father he can do all sorts of things. He can destroy the letter or he can confront his wife and accuse her of having initiated the thing.

We felt, after looking at all the circumstances, that this was possibly the best way we could deal with that. All future applications will automatically be made in the name of the mother but in the possible circumstances of some of those unfortunate women we felt this would be the best way. A short note from the mother to the Department will have that changed. All we need is very basic information. We must know the lady's name, we must know that she still exists and that she is at least resident with the children. She can take the initiative but she can take the initiative unknown to the husband. There is no need for the husband to be consulted one way or the other. She can look for it and it is hers by right. If—I mean this sincerely—any better way can be found of doing this, I would be only too glad to hear of such a way because I have examined it very closely. I am not tremendously happy with the solution we have come up with but with all the difficulties it is the best solution I have been able to come up with so far. I have every sympathy with the point the Deputy has made.

Mr. Faulkner

I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary will appreciate that as soon as the note is sent up and the book is changed the trouble will arise. I accept there are difficulties. I suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary that he will have under the regulations power to withdraw a nomination and, therefore, if a valid reason is given to him in any particular case that the person who is nominated under this Bill is not carrying out his duties properly in relation to the money received, he will see to it that justice is done.

Mr. Callanan

When the mother is in complete control and a person writes into the Department what is the procedure then without the husband or the wife knowing it? If the wife writes in, in the case of the 10 per cent who are misusing the money, what system of investigation will be carried out by the Department? The same thing will apply when the mother has the right and she misuses the money. If the father wants to query it, what system of investigation will be carried out by the Department without interfering too much with the domestic affairs of the house?

Mr. Cluskey

Whatever inquiries are made in a case such as this will be very discreet.

Mr. Callanan

By whom?

Mr. Cluskey

By an accredited official of the Department. It applies both ways. If the mother is misusing the children's allowance the Minister has the right to nominate the father, the grandmother, grandfather or, indeed, any responsible person whom he is satisfied will look after the best interests of the child?

Question put and agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment, received for final consideration and passed.