Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 8 Mar 1994

Vol. 440 No. 1

Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Social Welfare (Consolidation) Act, 1993.

Bernard Allen

Question:

6 Mr. Allen asked the Minister for Social Welfare his views on whether it is just that a person and their children should be suddenly subjected to a reduction in income as a result of the implementation of Part 10 of the Social Welfare (Consolidation) Act, 1993, which imposes a liability on the spouses of certain social welfare recipients, including deserted wives, to make contributions to his Department towards payment of such benefits; and if this is now being misinterpreted by his Department, which is now having maintenance allowances payable to deserted wives by their spouses, transferred to his Department, thereby bringing about a reduction in family income for these deserted wives and their children.

Bernard Allen

Question:

10 Mr. Allen asked the Minister for Social Welfare his views on whether it is just that a person and their children should be suddenly subjected to a reduction in income as a result of the implementation of Part 10 of the Social Welfare (Consolidation) Act, 1993, which imposes a liability on the spouses of certain social welfare recipients, including deserted wives, to make contributions to his Department towards payment of such benefits; and if this is now being misinterpreted by his Department, which is now having maintenance allowances, payable to deserted wives by their spouses, transferred to his Department thereby bringing about a reduction in family income for these deserted wives and their children.

I propose to take Questions Nos. 6 and 10 together.

Where a marriage breakdown occurs and a family is dependent on social welfare income maintenance, the person who is liable to maintain that family must contribute to my Department towards the cost of the family's income support. The provisions of Part 9 of the Social Welfare (Consolidation) Act, 1993 allow for the transfer to my Department of all court maintenance received by a claimant, including maintenance paid to children, to offset their spouse's liability.

In situations where the family is adequately maintained by the liable relative, that is where the maintenance, which may relate to both the claimant and dependent children, exceeds the maximum rate of deserted wife's benefit or lone parent's allowance appropriate to the family size, then my Department is not involved in income support. However, if the level of maintenance is inadequate or no maintenance is paid to the family, my Department supports the family through the appropriate income support scheme.

When a deserted wife is awarded deserted wife's benefit, then her spouse becomes liable to contribute to my Department towards that benefit. Where that spouse is paying maintenance on foot of a court order, that order must be transferred to my Department to offset his liability.

The rationale behind this measure is that my Department guarantees the lone parent a regular weekly payment and recovers some of the cost from the liable relative, including payments he makes in compliance with a court maintenance order. A woman on deserted wife's benefit with three children will receive from July next £64.50 plus £17 for each child, that is a total of £115.50 per week. This is the same payment as applies in the case of a widow.

If the liable relative defaults on court maintenance payments subsequently my Department can take action under social welfare legislation. This removes the onus on deserted or separated spouses to have to seek court enforcement under family law themselves where they are not receiving maintenance regularly.

Since the legislation was introduced in November, 1990 my Department has concentrated on identifying whether there is a liable relative and whether he or she is in a position to pay a contribution. At the end of this process existing recipients of deserted wife's benefit or allowance or lone parent's allowance may be requested to transfer their maintenance payments to the Department. In all cases the Department seeks transfer of maintenance payments from a current date only. In no case are any arrears of maintenance sought from the lone parent. Where such transfer of maintenance takes place in the case of a person receiving a lone parent's allowance, their rate of weekly allowance is adjusted upwards to reflect the loss of means through maintenance.

All new applicants for lone parents or deserted wife's payment are made aware from the outset that if their claim is successful any court maintenance payments which they are in receipt of will be transferable to the Department. They are guaranteed their maximum weekly benefit or allowance entitlement in that situation.

How many husbands have been brought into the net as a result of the introduction of this provision?

A total of 281 maintenance orders have been transferred to date.

The Minister's earlier response will be very disappointing for families. In practice women and children are receiving ultimatums from the Minister's Department to sign away their maintenance payments or have their deserted wife's benefit reduced accordingly. Does the Minister recognise the hardship this will impose on the families concerned and will he introduce a transition system so that payments will not be reduced from £120 to £65 in one week? Will the Minister agree that this proposal will cause severe hardship to families who cannot afford such a sudden reduction in payment?

The legislation is based on a guarantee. I was very much involved in its introduction which was suggested by Deputies as a result of their experiences. Many people were without proper payment and the conditions were such that they could not get deserted wife's benefit or lone parent's allowance. Legislation was introduced to guarantee that people in those circumstances would receive payment equal to a widow's pension.

They are social insurance based entitlements.

Let us hear the Minister.

That guarantee is set down in legislation. The Department makes very clear to anyone seeking the guarantee that the maintenance order will be transferable. Obviously, if the amount of maintenance paid is greater than, for instance, deserted wife's benefit, that payment will arise. In so far as there may be existing cases where an order has been made, I will consider the transitional arrangement suggested by the Deputy. The legislation is very clear and the purpose and intent of the House in passing it was that a deserted wife should not be forced into having to go back to court to get even part of the maintenance due. The legislation provides that the Department would take that action on her behalf where necessary and in the meantime would give her a guarantee of a payment equal to that made to widows. I wish to make clear the position and what is in the legislation. I will consider the Deputy's proposal in the context of existing cases.

I welcome the Minister's acknowledgment that the regulations cause severe hardship to families. Does the Minister agree that this provision is a further attack on the social insurance based system? What people are getting is not charity, but an entitlement. This provision is akin to the attempt to means test widow's pension and the Minister should reverse it immediately. It is a serious attack on women and children who, through no fault of their own, are experiencing hard times.

I entirely reject what the Deputy has said. He was probably in the House when this legislation was passed——

Payments are being reduced by £50 a week.

The basis of the legislation is to provide a guarantee equal to that which applies in the case of a widow.

It is an entitlement.

It applies to deserted wife's benefit, deserted wife's allowance and lone parent's allowance and has been of tremendous value to many deserted wives and lone parents who no longer have to pursue in court the deserting spouse.

Top
Share