Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 19 Oct 1993

Social Welfare (Consolidation) Bill, 1993: Report and Final Stages.

Minister for Social Welfare (Dr. Woods)

There are three amendments tabled for Report Stage. I move amendment No. 1:

In page 50, line 20, to delete "allowance" and substitute "benefit".

This amendment relates to section 37 which contains the provisions relating to entitlement to maternity benefit. Maternity benefit had previously been referred to as "maternity allowance". As social insurance payments generally are referred to as benefits, this Bill replaces the title "maternity allowance" with that of "maternity benefit". This amendment provides a minor textual amendment of section 37 by substituting the word "benefit" for the word "allowance".

Mr. Bradford

My party has no difficulty whatsoever with this amendment which simply clarifies the position, as the Minister has said.

Obviously the main work on this Bill was undertaken by the Standing Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills so that what we have before us this afternoon are the fruits of their work. We have three amendments only with which to deal.

At Question Time recently we discussed in much greater detail the effects on maternity benefit of the cuts implemented by the Minister's predecessor, which is what we would prefer to discuss in greater detail here this afternoon had we the opportunity to do so. However, I understand that under Standing Orders we must adhere rigidly to a very brief discussion on the amendments the Minister has tabled. We have no difficulty whatsoever with amendment No. 1 which simply rectifies a technical error.

In passing I should say I welcome the fact that the Bill is before us this afternoon for discussion. It is very helpful to public representatives to have such precise and concise information in relation to social welfare benefits readily available. Indeed, if something similar could be done in other aspects of legislation it would make life much easier. The fact that the Social Welfare (Consolidation) Bill, 1993, is so bulky leads me to suggest that what we will have to talk about in the longer term is the consolidation of a number of schemes where there is duplication, red tape and bureaucracy. This could be done if we brought together many of these schemes. Social welfare is a minefield of confusion. While I welcome this consolidation Bill and the ongoing efforts of the Minister to clarify the difficulties, the problem remains that with so many people dependent on social welfare we are generating red tape and bureaucracy and almost making an industry out of the social welfare system. I hope we will discuss in the not too distant future ways and means of streamlining the system and making it more simple whereby people will be able to obtain their benefits and allowances in a more easy format. Notwithstanding those points, I welcome the fact that we are debating the legislation. Obviously, amendment No. 1, which is for clarification purposes, causes me no difficulty whatsoever.

Ms O'Donnell

Likewise, we have no problem with the amendment. As the Minister has said it is a simple matter and I do not wish to delay the House.

Amendment agreed to.

Dr. Woods

I move amendment No. 2:

In page 140, line 55, after "benefit" to insert "under Part II".

Amendment No. 2 relates to section 211. This amendment, which is designed to remove an ambiguity in section 211, confirms that the reference to benefit contained in subsection (1) means benefit under Part II of the Bill. This section relates to people resident outside the State or in prison. They receive a benefit rather than an assistance payment. This amendment clarifies that this only applies to insurance benefits. It removes an ambiguity.

Amendment agreed to.

Dr. Woods

I move amendment No. 3:

In page 153, to delete lines 32 to 39.

Amendment No. 3 relates to section 224 (8). It carries forward the provisions of subsection (7) of section 20 of the Social Welfare Act, 1988, which relates to the competence of a person to give evidence in any proceedings taken against their spouse. This provision has been superseded by provisions contained in the Criminal Evidence Act, 1992. The purpose of amendment No. 3, which is being made on the advice of the parliamentary draftsman, is to delete this provision, which is now obsolete. We had to have a provision in social welfare because there was not a provision to cover our situation in the Criminal Evidence Acts. As soon as the Criminal Evidence Act, 1992, was brought up to date, our provision became unnecessary. This is a further tidying up exercise.

Ms O'Donnell

Does the section, which has replaced the section being removed, make a spouse competent but not compellable, or are the terms exactly the same? I should like to hear the Minister's response on why we need that facility.

Dr. Woods

Section 21 of the Criminal Evidence Act, 1992, makes a spouse and a former spouse of an accused person competent witnesses in all cases for the prosecution, the accused and the co-accused, unless in the case of the prosecution a spouse or former spouse is charged with the same proceedings. Section 22 deals with compellability of a spouse or former spouse to give evidence at the instance of the prosecution. It provides that the spouse of the accused, unless charged in the same proceedings, is compellable for prosecution only where the offence involves violence to the spouse, a child or either spouse or any person under the age of 17 or is a sexual offence against a child or either spouse. A former spouse, unless charged with the accused in the same proceedings, is compellable for the prosecution unless the offence is a non-violent offence committed while the marriage subsisted.

Mr. Bradford

In introducing this amendment the Minister referred to subsection (7) of section 20 of the 1988 Act. Can the Minister outline briefly in what sense it has been changed?

Dr. Woods

The provision is unnecessary so that it is being deleted from the Social Welfare (Consolidation) Bill, 1993. That provision is not necessary now because it is covered in the Criminal Evidence Act, 1992. It is purely a tidying up exercise recommended by the draftsman. There is no need for that provision in this Bill since it exists in law already and is applied in the Criminal Evidence Act where it is set out more comprehensively.

Amendment agreed to.