Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 31 Mar 1976

Vol. 289 No. 5

Family Law (Maintenance of Spouses and Children) Bill, 1975: From the Seanad.

The Dáil went into Committee to consider amendments from the Seanad.

Minister for Justice (Mr. Cooney)

I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 1:

Section 10: In page 9, subsection (2), line 27, "(at the time of the making of the order or at any time thereafter)" inserted after "person who".

The purpose of this amendment is to put beyond doubt that an attachment of earnings order will be effective against second or subsequent employers without the need for a new order to be made in each case. It was always the intention that when an attachment order was made against employer A, and the employee left to take up work with employer B, the order would be effective against employer B.

Question put and agreed to.

Mr. Cooney

I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 2:

Section 22: In page 15, after subsection (6), the following subsection inserted:

"(7) Where, by reason only of an order under subsection (1) of this section, a person is not residing at a place during any period, he shall be deemed, for the purposes of any rights under the Landlord and Tenant Acts, 1931 to 1971, the Statute of Limitations, 1957, or the Rent Restrictions Acts, 1960 and 1967, to be residing at the place during that period."

This amendment refers to section 22 which is the section giving the District Court power to exclude a violent spouse from the family home. The amendment provides that his period of exclusion shall not break any period of possession or occupation that he might have been enjoying for the purpose of establishing rights under the Landlord and Tenant Acts, the Rent Restrictions Acts or the Statute of Limitations. The amendment provides that if he is excluded by reason of an order of the District Court, any rights that have been accruing to him under those Acts will not be affected. If the position were to be otherwise, the wife and the rest of the family could be prejudiced in so far as the rights of the husband are concerned under the statutes in question.

Question put and agreed to.

Mr. Cooney

Since amendments Nos. 3, 4 and 7 are cognate, perhaps we could take them together.

I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 3:

Section 23: In page 15, line 28, "£40" be deleted and "£50" substituted.

These amendments are for the purpose of meeting a point raised originally in this House and raised again in the Seanad, namely, that the amounts that can be awarded by the District Court are arbitrary. There is a limit of £40 per week in respect of a spouse and of £10 per week in respect of each dependent child. Both Houses considered that, having regard to the movement of inflation, these figures might be inadequate in a few years' time. It was suggested that power be taken by the Minister for Justice, subject to approval by both Houses, to fix by regulation the limits of the District Court's jurisdiction. I am advised that there is a constitutional problem involved in such a procedure and that it would not be safe to adopt it. However, in order to meet the apprehension expressed in both Houses, I introduced this amendment in the Seanad to raise to £50 the amount of maintenance that may be awarded in respect of the spouse and £15 in respect of each dependent child. I do not believe that there will be any doubt that these maxima will take care of the vast majority of cases coming before the District Court for the foreseeable future.

Mr. G. Collins

I welcome these amendments. I am glad the Minister, as he said, has been able to meet the wishes of Members of both Houses. While the increases which are now incorporated in the amendments are generous in the present year, with inflation running as it is, would the Minister possibly consider keeping an eye on that section of the Bill and if it is necessary come before the House with an amendment to increase the amounts?

Mr. Cooney

I cannot foresee that arising for a considerable time. Should that situation arise, not merely would this Bill have to be amended but a whole range of statutory provisions in regard to the monetary jurisdiction of the District Court would have to be amended.

Question put and agreed to.

Mr. Cooney

I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 4:

In page 15, line 29, "£10" deleted and "£15" substituted.

Question put and agreed to.

Mr. Cooney

I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 5:

Section 5: In page 16, lines 52 to 56 deleted.

With the permission of the House I would like to take amendments Nos. 5 and 6 together. These amendments are technical and they are to make sure that certain changes which are made in the Illigitimate Children (Affiliation Orders) Act, 1930, by virtue of this Bill, are in the correct sequence. These are purely technical drafting amendments.

Question put and agreed to.

Mr. Cooney

I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 6:

In page 18, after line 60, the following inserted:

"( ) by the substitution in section 6 (1) and 7 of ‘two hundred pounds' for ‘fifty pounds' (inserted in the said section 7 by the Courts Act, 1971);

and the said sections 3 (1) (a), 6 (1) and 7, as so amended, are set out in the Table to this section."

Question put and agreed to.

Mr. Cooney

I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 7:

In page 19, lines 5 and 27, "£10" deleted and "£15" substituted.

Question put and agreed to.

Mr. Cooney

I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 8:

Section 29: In page 19, line 31, "including" inserted before "references".

This amendment is a drafting amendment. It is designed to ensure that the Enforcement of Court Orders Acts procedure will be available in proceedings under the Affiliation Orders Act.

Question put and agreed to.

Amendment Nos. 1 to 8, inclusive, reported and agreed to.