Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 19 Feb 1991

Vol. 405 No. 3

Adjournment Debate. - Social Welfare and Justice Matters.

The House will now hear one minute statements on matters appropriate to the Minister for Social Welfare in the first instance, to be followed by statements appropriate to the Minister for Justice by Deputy Deenihan and Deputy Cotter. The Deputies are entitled to one minute in respect of each matter and the Ministers concerned five minutes between them to reply. Let us now deal with Deputy Cotter's statement.

Thank you, a Cheann Comhairle and I want to thank the Minister for coming into the Chamber this evening to answer my query.

I sought to raise this matter because a number of people have asked me about it from time to time and I wanted to take the opportunity to discuss it with the Minister. Under the means testing system of the Department of Social Welfare, the income of one spouse is reckoned to be divided between them in so far as 50 per cent would be attributed to the other partner. If PRSI were charged on the family income on that basis, both partners would be entitled equally to a contributory pension when they reached pensionable age. That is not the case at present and I wonder if this is an anomaly which could be exploited by somebody at some stage, for example, under family law the property of one spouse is reckoned to be jointly the property of another.

I look forward to hearing the Minister's reply.

I now call Deputy Jimmy Deenihan.

An increase in juvenile crime has created a severe shortage of places in detention centres for young offenders. They can only be placed in custody if a place exists for them. Some offenders are, as a result, deprived of a chance of rehabilitation while others develop an attitude that their actions can go unpunished. District justices have no option in most cases but to place them on probation and as result they become habitual criminals, with no respect either for the law or their victims.

It is a fact that one year after the Justice Wine case in Dún Laoghaire, there is still no female unit for wayward girls. Trinity House for boys is far too small and has a considerable waiting list. Meanwhile, tearaway children are jailed in unsuitable conditions in Mountjoy Prison, are detained in the Bridewell or freed into the community. The hands of the courts are tied in many ways and justices are becoming more and more frustrated and consequently the law falls into disrepute.

This problem must be tackled immediately by the appropriate Ministers acting together and not avoiding the issue by buck passing.

I now call Deputy Bill Cotter.

I wish to raise the same issue. On 5 February last I tabled a question to the Minister for Justice asking if he would give details of the number of male and female juvenile offenders who were detained in places of detention during the various years and I got a very silly reply. The Minister told me that I would get the information in a report which would be published some time later. How can the Minister administer the system if he does not have the numbers available to him? I am certain he has the figures but he has refused to give them to me.

Does the Minister think we are living in a banana republic? Because of the way he approached these matters — and he got away very lightly all year because he had two portfolios — most of the time we could not get any information from him. I am extremely disappointed with the Minister. I want to take the matter further and I am going to try to ensure that when Deputies table questions in the House they are given answers. It is a disgrace that we cannot do that at present.

The day after I asked the question I saw a report in the newspaper where a juvenile offender was released because there was no place for him. The Minister is obviously trying to hide things and it is disgraceful that he should do that.

Ministers to reply: first, the Minister for Social Welfare, Deputy Michael Woods.

In reply to Deputy Cotter's question, the self-employed were brought into the social insurance system for the first time with effect from April 1988. Under the scheme self-employed people with annual incomes of £2,500 or more are insured for contributory old age and widows and orphans' pensions.

Certain relatives who work with self-employed persons running a business — and it can be a business or a farm, of course — but who are not partners in the business are excluded from the scheme. The are not required to make a PRSI contribution.

In the case of farming couples, it is normally the husband who enters the social insurance scheme for the self-employed. His social insurance contribution is based on farm income assessible for tax. His spouse is considered to be an assisting relative.

Although only one spouse contributes to the scheme, the other spouse will of course, be regarded as an adult dependant. At present, the personal rate of contributory pension is £61.50 per week, while the adult dependant allowance for a spouse over 66 years of age is £45.70. This is the highest rate of adult dependant allowance paid under any of our social insurance schemes. In addition, farmers' wives are entitled to widow's contributory pension on the basis of their husband's insurance.

Any change to the system which caused farm income to be allocated between husband and wife would deprive some farmers of social insurance cover. This would arise because the farmer's income would be divided between the farming couple, and neither of them may then have an income in excess of £2,500. Farming couples would, therefore, have little to gain and much to lose from a change in the system along the lines suggested.

The pension position of relatives assisting in a self-employment situation is one of a number of issues which will be addressed by the National Pensions Board in their final report which is due shortly. Deputies will appreciate that it was one of the elements that had to be left to the end but it will be considered by them and we should have the report by summer time.

The main detention facilities operated by the Department of Justice geared primarily towards young offenders are St. Patrick's Institution, Wheatfield and the open centre at Shanganagh Castle. Measures are taken to ensure that the numbers being accommodated there are kept within desirable limits. Overcrowding is never a problem at Wheatfield or Shanganagh Castle. As St. Patrick's Institution is unlike the others, a committal institution, and as the number of committals from the courts on a given day is unpredictable it can happen from time to time that some nights more offenders have to be held at St. Patrick's Institution than might be considered ideal. However, when this happens, measures are taken the following day to attempt to bring the numbers there under control.

On the general question of secure detention centres for young offenders the position is that the courts may commit young offenders in certain age groups to St. Patrick's Institution and to our committal prisons. These institutions are the responsibility of the Department of Justice. The courts may also commit young offenders in certain age groups to special schools, such as Trinity House in Lusk which was designed specifically as a secure detention facility for male offenders. The House will be aware that the Department of Education have plans in this area, including plans to provide new accommodation at Lusk for young female offenders.

At present, two young female offenders have a case before the courts in relation to their detention. Consequently, as the matter is sub judice, I am constrained from commenting on it.

I want to assure the House, and particularly Deputy Cotter, that once questions are tabled to the Minister, the Minister answers those questions and we do not want to deny any Deputy the information that is available to us.

I want to assure the House further that the Government are constantly examining and reviewing the situation pertaining to juvenile justice and the House can be assured that as matters unfold the Government will take the appropriate action.

Tell that to the senior Minister.

The Dáil adjourned at 9.10 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Wednesday, 20 February 1991.

Top
Share