We had some difficulty with the definition of cohabitation. It would be useful under this section to define what we mean in exact terms so that there is no uncertainty in regard to people in what might be termed a short term relationship which could not be said to be similar to that of a married couple. I am not saying there should be permanency, but some period of time should be stipulated to delineate the relationship.
Private Members' Business. - Social Welfare (No. 2) Bill, 1995: Committee Stage (Resumed).
Debate resumed on amendment No. 9:
In page 6, paragraph (c), line 38, after "wife" to insert "and have been so cohabitating for a period of, or for periods amounting to, more than one year".
—(Deputy Keogh)
I support Deputy Keogh's amendment. I also raised the question of the lack of definition. It is important in the interests of clarity that people should know what precisely is meant by cohabitation. Do we mean one night, one week, or a longer period? It would be worthwhile to spell it out. I look forward to the Minister's elucidation of the matter.
I do not know why Deputy Walsh should presume that I am an expert on cohabitation, but I will respond to the amendment. The amendment proposed by Deputy Keogh would mean that a cohabiting couple would not be recognised as such for the purposes of the family income supplement scheme unless they had been cohabiting for a period of at least one year. Either of the couple could still claim FIS, however, if they were on low pay, in the same way as a lone parent is entitled to FIS. The partner would not be regarded as a member of the family and, as a result, the partner's income would not be taken into account in determining entitlement to FIS. The practical effect of the proposed amendment, therefore, would be that in certain circumstances a couple who had been cohabiting for less than one year would be treated more favourably than a married couple. This would clearly be in breach of the Constitution, and for this reason I have to oppose the amendment.
I am disappointed. As the whole premise would be that the couple would not be seen as living together as man and wife for that year, the point the Minister of State makes is not valid. Perhaps I have not understood him very well, but that is how it appears to me. Perhaps he would elucidate.
I understand that the purpose of Deputy Keogh's amendment is to try to limit the circumstances under which family income supplement would be paid to cohabiting couples to couples who have been cohabiting for one year. There are two possibilities. One is that a couple cohabitating for less than one year would not qualify for family income supplement. A second scenario — and perhaps it is an unintentional consequence of Deputy Keogh's amendment — is that a cohabiting couple under this arrangement could end up in a more favourable position financially than a married couple.
For example, if a couple is cohabiting and one partner is on a low income, the income of the other partner is not taken into account. In such circumstances, the couple will be in receipt of family income supplement in the first year of cohabitation which they might not receive if the other partner's income were taken into account. They would be better off financially than if they were married. Other practical difficulties also arise. Under existing arrangements a total of 20 hours a week must be worked and the couple may aggregate the hours. That would not be possible in the first year of cohabitation under Deputy Keogh's amendment.
Do we accept that a couple are cohabiting when they say they are cohabiting?
Yes. The state of de facto cohabitation is considered as cohabitation. The time limit which the Deputy proposes could be unfair to cohabiting couples who may not qualify under it and it could also give rise to practical difficulties.
I accept what the Minister said but it would be beneficial to define "cohabitation" in the Bill.
One of the conditions of entitlement to social welfare payments is that a person is not cohabiting. This condition applies in the case of lone parent's allowance, deserted wife's benefit and allowance and widow's and widower's contributory pension. Disqualification on grounds of cohabitation is rare. Some 114 people were disqualified in 1994. They were mainly unmarried parents in receipt of lone parent's allowance and 40 people were disqualified to date this year. In deciding whether a person is disqualified a deciding officer must be satisfied that the claimant is living with someone as husband and wife. There is no single factor by which this can be determined. As relationships and domestic and financial arrangements between husbands and wives vary considerably each case must be decided on its merits.
It is unsatisfactory that decisions are made on an arbitrary basis. I am not concerned about a specific length of time but there should be a more objective way of dealing with the matter.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 10 and 12 are related and may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 10:
In page 6, paragraph (c), between lines 38 and 39, to insert the following:
"or
(c) each person of a married couple;'.".
The definition of spouse includes (a) a party to a marriage which has been dissolved and (b) a man and a woman who are not married. This amendment proposes that the definition should also include each person of a married couple.
Sections 9 and 10 provide that for the purposes of the family income supplement scheme and determining entitlement to an increase for an adult dependant the word "spouse" shall include a divorced person where the divorced is recognised and one of a cohabitating couple. Amendments Nos. 19 and 12 propose that the word "spouse" shall also include one of a married couple. These amendments are unnecessary since, by definition, the word "spouse" means one of a married couple.
As Deputies will expect, very careful consideration was given in the Department and the Office of the Attorney General to the text of the Bill and in this context an approach along the general lines of the amendments was considered. However, on the advice of the parliamentary draftsman it was decided not to refer to one of a married couple in the Bill. Sections 9 and 10 as initiated make it unnecessary to refer to one of a married couple as the word "spouse" means one of a married couple. For these reasons I cannot accept the amendments.
I accept the points made by the Minister. Our amendment on the weekly family income supplement was disallowed but I ask the Minister to look at it again as we are anxious that the second family is not impoverished. Under the Bill a man could be regarded as having two wives. If he has five children by each wife he will be able to claim a family income supplement for two adult dependants and ten children. However, we do not know if the money will be passed to them. Under a maintenance order he is obliged to look after his first family and as a result the second family may be impoverished. Will the Minister clarify the meaning of the word "family" in section 9?
The amendment, which was ruled out of order, proposed that for the purposes of determining entitlement to family income supplement any maintenance payment made by a member of the family to their former spouse would be deducted in determining the weekly family income. This would have meant that the Exchequer would have had to subsidise maintenance payments made by a divorced person to their former spouse. This would have implications for other areas of the social welfare code and would have to be considered very carefully.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 11 not moved.
Section 9 agreed to.
SECTION 10.
Amendment No. 12 not moved.
I move amendment No. 13:
In page 7, subsection (3), line 18, to delete "may" and substitute "shall".
This amendment proposes to substitute the word "shall" for the word "may" so as to ensure greater emphasis on this matter.
Section 10 (3) proposes that regulations may provide for determining the circumstances in which a person is to be regarded as wholly or mainly maintaining another person. The substitution of the word "shall" for the word "may" would impose an obligation on the Minister to make the regulations. The Minister would not have taken these powers if he did not intend making the regulations provided for in the section. As he will make the regulations in any event I am prepared to accept the amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 14:
In page 7, between lines 24 and 25, to insert the following subsection:
"(5) Any increase in a social welfare payment in respect of an adult dependant shall, if requested by any such adult dependant, be payable to the adult dependant in his or her own right.".
This amendment deals with the core issue in the Bill. I would not wish to be regarded as a dependant as it is demeaning and we strongly believe that a person should receive a payment in his or her own right. We have gone some way along this road in other enlightened social welfare legislation. However, under this Bill reference is made to an adult dependant, a prisoner's wife, a deserted wife etc. This dependant category is not relevant in the 1990s and people should be paid their entitlements in their own right. I do not understand why the Bill insists that a person should be regarded as an appendage of someone with whom they no longer live. We will press this amendment to a vote.
This amendment proposes that an increase in a social welfare payment in respect of an adult dependant would, at the request of the adult dependant, be payable directly to him or her. Under existing legislation payment may be made directly to an adult dependant where the circumstances so warrant. These are known as separate payments. These provisions are used in cases of difficult family circumstances which generally involve situations where the claimant is not using the benefit or allowance to support the dependant. Where the adult dependant is living with the claimant they can receive half of the married rate of payment, that is half the personal rate plus the increase for the adult dependant, and the full increases for children. These provisions are more favourable than those provided for in amendment No. 14. In cases where the adult dependant is not living with the claimant they may receive the adult dependant increase and the full increases for any dependent children. Again, these provisions are more favourable than those provided for in the amendment.
I am not opposed to the amendment in principle but I do not regard it as directly relevant to the divorce issue. This is a much broader issue and is along the lines of the points made by Deputy Keogh on Second Stage about the introduction of provisions to enable women in the home qualify for contributory pensions in their own right. I consider that the issue needs to be examined in this broader context and for this reason I will oppose the amendment.
What is the position with amendment No. 14?
It is my intention to press this amendment. I feel strongly that people in these situations should be entitled to increases as it is demeaning for any citizen to be regarded as an adult dependant.
Amendment put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 52; Níl, 69.
Tá
- Ahern, Dermot.
- Ahern, Michael.
- Ahern, Noel.
- Aylward, Liam.
- Briscoe, Ben.
- Byrne, Hugh.
- Callely, Ivor.
- Cowen, Brian.
- Cullen, Martin.
- Davern, Noel.
- de Valera, Síle.
- Doherty, Seán.
- Kirk, Séamus.
- Kitt, Michael P.
- Kitt, Tom.
- Leonard, Jimmy.
- Martin, Micheál.
- McDaid, James.
- Moffatt, Tom.
- Molloy, Robert.
- Morley, P.J.
- Moynihan, Donal.
- Noonan, Michael (Limerick West).
- O'Donnell, Liz.
- O'Donoghue, John.
- O'Hanlon, Rory.
- Ellis, John.
- Fitzgerald, Liam.
- Flood, Chris.
- Foley, Denis.
- Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
- Haughey, Seán.
- Hilliard, Colm M.
- Hughes, Séamus.
- Jacob, Joe.
- Kenneally, Brendan.
- Keogh, Helen.
- Killeen, Tony.
- O'Keeffe, Batt.
- O'Keeffe, Ned.
- O'Leary, John.
- O'Malley, Desmond J.
- Power, Seán.
- Quill, Máirín.
- Ryan, Eoin.
- Smith, Brendan.
- Smith, Michael.
- Treacy, Noel.
- Wallace, Dan.
- Wallace, Mary.
- Walsh, Joe.
- Woods, Michael.
Níl
- Ahearn, Theresa.
- Allen, Bernard.
- Barrett, Séan.
- Bell, Michael.
- Bhamjee, Moosajee.
- Boylan, Andrew.
- Bradford, Paul.
- Bhreathnach, Niamh.
- Bree, Declan.
- Broughan, Tommy.
- Browne, John (Carlow-Kilkenny).
- Bruton, John.
- Bruton, Richard.
- Burton, Joan.
- Byrne, Eric.
- Carey, Donal.
- Connaughton, Paul.
- Connor, John.
- Costello, Joe.
- Coveney, Hugh.
- Crawford, Seymour.
- Creed, Michael.
- Currie, Austin.
- Deasy, Austin.
- Deenihan, Jimmy.
- Dukes, Alan M.
- Ferris, Michael.
- Finucane, Michael.
- Fitzgerald, Brian.
- Fitzgerald, Frances.
- Flaherty, Mary.
- Gallagher, Pat.
- Gilmore, Eamon.
- Harte, Paddy.
- Higgins, Jim.
- Higgins, Michael D.
- Hogan, Philip.
- Howlin, Brendan.
- Kenny, Enda.
- Kenny, Seán.
- Lowry, Michael.
- Lynch, Kathleen.
- McCormack, Pádraic.
- McGahon, Brendan.
- McGinley, Dinny.
- McGrath, Paul.
- McManus, Liz.
- Mitchell, Gay.
- Mulvihill, John.
- Nealon, Ted.
- Noonan, Michael (Limerick East).
- O'Keeffe, Jim.
- O'Shea, Brian.
- Owen, Nora.
- Pattison, Séamus.
- Penrose, William.
- Quinn, Ruairí.
- Rabbitte, Pat.
- Ring, Michael.
- Ryan, John.
- Ryan, Seán.
- Shatter, Alan.
- Sheehan, P.J.
- Shortall, Róisín.
- Spring, Dick.
- Taylor, Mervyn.
- Upton, Pat.
- Walsh, Eamon.
- Yates, Ivan.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies D. Ahern and Callely; Níl, Deputies B. Fitzgerald and J. Higgins.
Amendment declared lost.
Section 10, as amended, agreed to.
NEW SECTIONS.
Amendment No. 15 is in the name of the Minister, amendment No. 18 is consequential and both may be discussed together. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 15:
In page 7, before section 11, to insert the following new section:
"11.—(1) Rule 1 of Part I of the Third Schedule to the Principal Act is hereby amended by—
(a) the insertion in paragraph (2) after subparagraph (p) (inserted by section 18 of the Act of 1994) of the following subparagraph:
`(q) subject to paragraph (6), any moneys derived from insurable employment of a seasonal nature;'
and
(b) the insertion after paragraph
(5) of the following paragraph:
`(6) In the case of a person who makes a claim for unemployment assistance in respect of a day of unemployment which occurs during a period in which he is engaged in insurable employment of a seasonal nature, the value, ascertained in the prescribed manner, of any moneys derived from the said employment and the value so calculated shall be deemed to constitute the weekly means of that person from such employment for the purposes of Chapter 2 of Part III:'.
(2) Paragraph (a) of section 4 (4) of the Principal Act is hereby amended by the substitution for Rule 1 (2) (m) of Part I' of `Rules 1 (2) (m) and 1 (6) of Part I'.
(3) Section 119 of the Principal Act is hereby amended by the substitution in the definition of `weekly means' of `shall, subject to Rule 1 (6) of Part I of the Third Schedule, be the yearly means' for `shall be the yearly means'.".
The purpose of this amendment is to change the method of assessment for entitlement to unemployment assistance for seasonal workers. On becoming unemployed at the end of the working season, seasonal workers normally claim unemployment benefit, which is based on their PRSI contributions. However, some workers may not qualify for benefit because they do not have the necessary contributions or have already exhausted their entitlement to 15 months' benefit and have not paid the 13 contributions required to requalify. In this instance they have to rely on unemployment assistance for income support for the period of unemployment.
The assessment of means for unemployment assistance was changed in July 1992. Since then earnings from insurable employment have been assessed as means. This change has caused particular difficulties for seasonal workers, such as those in Bord na Móna and in the meat processing and tourism industries, because their earnings from seasonal employment results in their qualifying for a reduced rate of unemployment assistance and, in some cases, not being entitled to any unemployment assistance on grounds of means.
Under the existing provisions means are assessed on an annual basis and account is taken of all earnings which a person may reasonably expect to receive in the coming year. In effect, earnings which they received in the preceding year are assessed. The practical effect of these provisions is that when seasonal workers apply for unemployment assistance on the cessation of their seasonal employment they are assessed on their earnings from that employment, although by then the income has probably been spent. Consequently, they qualify for a reduced rate of unemployment assistance for the remainder of the year and in many instances are required to apply for a top-up payment under the supplementary welfare allowance scheme.
Under this proposed amendment seasonal earnings will not be assessed in respect of claims made outside the period of seasonal employment. This approach will enable workers to qualify for the full rate of unemployment assistance on the cessation of employment until they resume their seasonal employment in the following year. If they claim unemployment assistance for any day of unemployment during the season, their current earnings will be taken into account in assessing their means. This amendment will enhance the attractiveness of taking up seasonal work by eliminating the disincentives under the current arrangements.
Amendment No. 18 is a consequential amendment to section 11 (3). It provides that the provisions of the Bill will be brought into force by way of a commencement order. The purpose of this amendment is to enable the proposed new provisions for the assessment of means for seasonal workers to be brought into force separately from the other provisions of the Bill.
: I strongly support this amendment; in my short period in this House this is one of the most welcome changes in social welfare legislation. The Minister said that the change which resulted from the 1992 amendments to social welfare regulations impinged particularly on Bord na Móna workers. My colleague, Deputy Penrose, and I represent two midlands constituencies which contain the vast majority of those workers and we are aware of the gradual erosion of the attractiveness of seasonal work as the 1992 changes were put in place. Initially, it did not affect them that much but as the practice evolved and as various cases were dealt with by Department of Social Welfare deciding officers and the social welfare appeals office, the effects of this change in the regulations were felt. Families were in dire poverty because of the way in which this was working out in practice.
In late 1993 I brought it to the attention of the then Minister. Deputy Woods, who inquired into it and tried to assist. As the year went on, more and more cases came to light. I have a large file in which individual cases are documented. As last year's Bord na Móna season got into fullswing, it became apparent that hundreds of families were being adversely affected by this provision.
We had a special sitting of this House at the end of August and the beginning of September for another purpose. At that time, Deputy Penrose and I met the then Minister, Deputy Woods, to impress on him the severe hardship and disincentive to work which was being created. A ludicrous situation arose where people who were let go at the end of August 1994 were, in some cases, being assessed on the basis of income which they earned in the summer of 1993. They were told that what they earned during a ten or 12 week period in the middle of 1993 was supposed to see them through the winter of 1994-95.
Unfortunately, we did not get a resolution of the problem at that stage. However, we did not give up and compiled our cases carefully and in detail. When Deputy Proinsias De Rossa took office as Minister, Deputy Penrose and I and the secretary of the Bord na Móna group of unions met with him at a very early stage and went through it in detail. He gave us a commitment that he understood the effect this was having on the Bord na Móna workers and undertook to have it reviewed in the Department. I am delighted that this amendment has been tabled. Deputy Penrose and I probably know better than anybody else in this House the practical benefit which it will bring to families. They already had low incomes, even through taking employment, but were being discouraged from taking up seasonal employment this year because of the effect of the 1992 regulations.
I compliment the Minister. I regard this as a very good example of what the social welfare code should do, which is to encourage people to take up work rather than discourage them. It is greatly welcomed in the midlands, particularly by the Bord na Móna seasonal workers.
I wish to echo the comments of my colleague, Deputy Gallagher. I come from the midland county of Westmeath and Deputy Gallagher is from the adjacent county of Offaly, and we realise the significance of this change in social welfare legislation. I was totally taken aback by the assessment of means for unemployment assistance which was brought in in July 1992. It was a good example of bureaucracy gone mad. It disregarded the poverty imposed on seasonal workers, particularly the Bord na Móna workers and workers in meat factories and tourism. It was a major disincentive to take up seasonal employment.
Bord na Móna was in the vanguard of change in the midlands. We lost 2,000 jobs and many of those people could only resort to seasonal employment with Bord na Móna, because of the seasonal nature of the production. We brought in legislation in 1992 which put this work out of reach of most of them. I had an example of a separated person with two children who received £37 a week as a result of the provisions whereby means were assessed on an annual basis and account was taken of the earnings which a person might reasonably expect to earn during the year.
When bureaucracy goes mad there is no limit to the madness. Instead of getting their entitlement from the Department of Social Welfare after working a hard 16, 18 or 20 weeks in the bog, people had to go to the community welfare officer to look for their other £65 or £70. I was astounded that was allowed to happen. I made my feelings known in no uncertain terms to the then Minister, Deputy Woods, who knew about it and tried to deal with it, and then to the current Minister.
I am glad that this change has taken place because it is important that we ensure people's dignity rather than making them go to two separate places to get their entitlements. This amendment ensures that people get their entitlements after working for 20 weeks. Those people would love to have fulltime jobs and it is not their fault that there are only 20 weeks of work in the summer, from April to September or early October, if they are lucky — often it is only 13 or 14 weeks. I am delighted that seasonal earnings will not be assessed in respect of claims made outside the period of seasonal employment.
Many Bord na Móna workers have signalled that this is an important change which they welcome. Deputy Gallagher and I, as ordinary backbenchers, brought this to the attention of the previous and current Ministers and it shows the importance of bringing forward common sense proposals, and of people listening to and implementing those proposals. I am delighted with the amendment.
I support this amendment. This matter has been highlighted since 1992. The Minister has only been in office for seven months but we can already see the necessary changes which he is quite prepared to make. This is one of the changes which came about without any great publicity or fanfare. People were only affected by it when they went to claim unemployment benefit or assistance and their previous year's earnings were set against them. Those earnings might have been earned, as Deputy Penrose said, in a very short period of time and could not have been expected to last people over the 52 weeks of the year. They were expected to live on those earnings with very small payments from the Department of Social Welfare.
I recognise that the midlands are greatly affected by this, but Mitchelstown Co-op, Waterford Co-op and various areas around the country were also affected by these draconian measures and the dirty dozen cuts. It was a disincentive to work. Why would anybody take 20 weeks work if it was going to be held against them for the rest of the year? People could not budget with that kind of legislation hanging over their heads. The Minister for Social Welfare must be congratulated on this amendment. I know that every seasonal worker will be singing his praises tonight.
I welcome this measure. There was a great deal of anxiety in relation to this matter which caused difficulty for people who work on a seasonal basis with the dairying, meat and tourism industries and in specific localised situations in Bord na Móna and elsewhere. The measure will help people and industries. Under the amendment earnings from seasonal employment will not be taken into account. I welcome that unreservedly.
This is an important amendment. Although we tried earlier to make some interim arrangements the matter will require more thought and consideration to find a solution. This amendment meets the requirements of some of the categories involved. It therefore sets a precedent. The position of other categories, including the self-employed such as carpenters and journeymen who have been forced out of the system and to become contractors, needs to be examined.
Any income from seasonal employment is taken into account by the Department of Social Welfare in assessing applicants for assistance. This presents a problem. A number of measures have been introduced since 1992 to rectify the anomalies in the system. This amendment will have a beneficial effect and is therefore a welcome addition to the Bill.
Earlier the Minister would not entertain any discussion on matters covered by the Bill. This is an indication that he was not being consistent. Despite this we support the amendment.
I welcome this amendment, the purpose of which is to alleviate harship. On Second Stage the Minister said that the purpose of the Bill was to sort out a particular situation. While this amendment is welcome in addressing the issue of divorce, other more pertinent proposals were not accepted by the Minister. I find this extraordinary. He cannot have it every way. In enacting legislation one has to be consistent. This is not to take away from the amendment the purpose of which is to solve a particular problem but it is wrong to prevent the Opposition from raising particular points relating to the object of the Bill.
I thank Deputies for extending a welcome to this amendment. I compliment in particular Deputy Pat Gallagher and Deputy Penrose for persisting with this matter which was brought to their attention by their constituents until a satisfactory solution was found.
Deputy Woods mentioned that this amendment sets a precedent and that the position of other categories of atypical workers should be examined. In regard to the self-employed the position is changing. This matter is being examined in the Department of Social Welfare.
Both Deputy Woods and Deputy Keogh were ungracious in expressing criticisms. This takes from the amendment.
The Minister of State has missed the point. If we are generous and accept the amendment openly the Minister should entertain discussion on the various sections of the Bill.
We have no difficulty with that. There is a necessity to introduce this section at this time as for many workers the summer season is about to commence. This is the appropriate time to do so. We need to make a distinction between taking the opportunity presented by this Bill to deal with an urgent matter and seeking to widen the terms of individual sections.
It is accepted that this amendment which is overdue will be welcomed by the seasonal workers concerned at Bord na Móna and in the meat processing and tourism industries. It will make a real difference.
I am disappointed the Minister of State has adopted this line. Both Deputy Keogh and I made it clear that we welcome this amendment. The Minister of State is suggesting that we should sit here and eat whatever is thrown at us.
It is a good Bill.
We have had a rough session with the Minister today; this is unusual in dealing with social welfare matters. This has not been a happy or pleasant day. The Minister was arrogant and engaged in sharp practice at the commencement of proceedings.
That is an opinion.
That is what happened. No one on the Opposition Benches, be they a member of the Progressive Democrats or Fianna Fáil——
The Deputy should confine his remarks to the section under discussion.
I am confining my remarks to the comments made by the Minister in that connection. The purpose of the Bill is to deal with issues relating to divorce and the changes in social welfare resulting therefrom. If the Government had approached the Opposition yesterday and said it wanted to introduce a simple Bill for that purpose and to put it through quickly, it would have had the support of all sides of the House. Instead we are faced with an amendment which will have complex implications. We accept the Department knows what it is doing and that the amendment will meet the requirements. I did not see the amendment until this afternoon; neither did the Opposition spokesperson see it until today. A proper explanation in that regard would have been helpful to the Opposition spokespersons.
It is somewhat disingenuous of the Minister to suggest that the Opposition is being other than open, helpful and generous in its approach to this section. This issue should have been included in the main Social Welfare Bill, but its complexity did not allow for that. I understand the difficulties experienced by the Department in this regard. Notwithstanding the way this amendment has been entered we welcome it. Let us not play politics with this issue.
I do not wish to be long-winded, but the Minister's choice of words was unfortunate. It is not right to describe as ungracious the remarks made by me and other members of the Opposition. As Deputy Woods said, we welcome the amendment. We are dealing with a specific issue relating to divorce and social welfare entitlements. It would be wrong not to point out that there are issues in the Bill that were not approached in as open a fashion as they might have been. I am simply making a point, not being ungracious.
Some of the debate today was fractious. It started off on the wrong footing. I appreciate the Minister of State has approached this matter in an open manner, but his remarks were not helpful. The Opposition is entitled to criticise a Bill and ask for clarification on aspects of it. I am extremely disappointed the Minister reacted in such a way.
A simple way to deal with this matter would be to introduce a separate Bill. However, we welcome the amendment even though it has been tagged on at the end of a Bill which specifically deals with issues relating to divorce. When we tried to raise related matters dealing with deserted spouses, adult dependency and the cost of various sections, they were not accepted. The Minister was very difficult with us when we asked ordinary Committee Stage questions, yet he has tagged on to the end of the Bill an unrelated matter. Despite that fact we welcome the amendment. I question the way the Minister handles business such as this.
In making my remarks I did not intend to provoke Members of the House. There was a necessity to introduce this amendment to deal with the issue. If the matter had been dealt with, for example, in the Social Welfare (No. 3) Bill, which will address many of the issues raised during the course of the debate, it would be too late for the seasonal workers because their season ends in September.
On the notice given of the amendment. I appreciate that sometimes Members may not receive documents or information, but as I understand it this amendment was circulated on Friday last. Deputies are perhaps being a little over-sensitive about the remarks I made. An open approach has been adopted to the debate — for example, amendment No. 11 which had been ruled out of order was responded to in order to be helpful and to promote open and free discussion. It is unhelpful for Members to be too sensitive. It would be much better to concentrate on the text and substance of the Bill rather than reopen some of the old sores of the earlier part of the debate.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 16:
In page 7, before section 11, to insert the following new section:
"11.—In all circumstances where a person is entitled to a social welfare payment on the basis of a marriage which has been dissolved, being a dissolution that is recognised as valid in the State, such payment shall be called a `special maintenance payment'.".
The difficulty with this Bill is that it was very poorly researched and sloppily put together. The information we sought has not been forthcoming. Instead we have received lectures and insults. We want to give clarity and precision to the Bill, to ensure people are treated in a fair and humane way and that, on the dissolution of a marriage, they do not carry demeaning tags. For example, for the purposes of the Bill people who have separated are still regarded as deserted wives and prisoners' wives.
Why should somebody who has terminated a marriage arrangement be labelled a prisoner's wife? It is deeply hurtful to people in that situation. I will not insist on the term "special maintenance payment" but the present wording is absurd and shows very little thought was given to the person left in this situation. Similarly why should somebody be regarded as an adult dependant? People should get their entitlements with proper designations. Only last year I brought it to the attention of the Minister that people in receipt of a blind pension, even if only in their twenties or thirties, were given an old age pension book. They resented that. If I had terminated a marriage and was a free person and got a prisoner's wife's allowance book I would deeply resent it. It is archaic, unfair and demeaning. I want to press this amendment. We want to get away from the dependency culture in this Bill.
I agree with all Deputy Walsh has said. We are very concerned about this, particularly from the point of view of the woman who is divorced. She is still called a wife, a deserted wife or a prisoner's wife. It seems extraordinary that a man could have two wives. In fact, her former husband could go to jail some time after the divorce and yet she will become a prisoner's wife. Despite the fact that they have gone their separate ways and she does not want to hear from him again, because he is sent to jail she gets a new book and is a prisoner's wife. It is an extraordinary situation. A different terminology should be used. We suggest "special maintenance payment" but we would agree to any wording that would mean the person is entitled to a payment in her own right.
I agree with this amendment. Language is very important and it is possible to be quite insulting and to unintentionally demean people. In the circumstances we are talking about here we should be even more sensitive than usual in the use of terminology.
I have no option but to oppose this amendment. The text is defective in that it refers to a person entitled to a social welfare payment on the basis of a marriage that has been dissolved. There are no provisions in the Bill to entitle a person to payment on the basis of a marriage which has been dissolved.
Futhermore, I am advised that even if the deficiency were rectified it is likely that the amendment would necessitate certain consequential amendments to other provisions in the Social Welfare Acts. These would include section 209 which deals with overlapping provisions under which as a general rule a person is not entitled to receive more than one social welfare payment at the same time. Amendments to section 30 of the Principal Act which describe social insurance payments and to section 118 which describe social assistance payments would also have to be considered. In effect, the nature of the amendment is such that it would be necessary to have a comprehensive examination of the Social Welfare Acts and regulations to identify all of the consequential changes. For these reasons I oppose the amendment.
Does the Minister of State accept the principle of what we are trying to say here with regard to the terminology being used and the offensiveness of the terms used in the Bill? It was cobbled together to make these payments but it is very offensive. Will the Minister accept that it is unsatisfactory to call somebody a deserted. wife or a prisoner's wife when she is no longer a wife? This terminology is exceedingly offensive and does the Minister of State accept that it simply has to be changed.
Deputy Wallace is having great difficulty in coming to terms with the concept of a man having two wives.
So are we all.
Indeed. From some of Deputy Wallace's earlier contributions one would think that following the introduction of divorce the country would be flooded with people rushing to engineer a breakdown of their marriages and seek a divorce. From her more recent contributions I am led to the conclusion that if this Bill is passed the country will be flooded with prisoners' wives. There are only eight women currently in receipt of prisoners wife's allowance. However, I accept the general thrust of the argument that it is undesirable to have people permanently labelled by reference to the type of social welfare book or card they have. As I understand it, that is an issue that is being examined in the Department of Social Welfare and it will be addressed at some stage in the future. However, the amendment before us does not adequately address that. First, it is technically flawed but second, and perhaps unwittingly, it may also introduce another form of categorisation because the term "special maintenance payment" could create a special category of payment for payments to spouses of divorced people and that might create another form of labelling. The whole issue of the titles and the labels used for different types of social welfare payments is being looked at by the Minister for Social Welfare. The formula suggested in this Bill does not address that problem. It is technically flawed and introduces another label which is probably an unwelcome addition to those in place.
I find it extraordinary that the Minister of State would try to argue his way out of this. The reality is that he does not have a leg to stand on. This is archaic, offensive and does not stand up. To use the clichéd excuse that it is flawed——
It is.
——or defective is not good enough. The Minister said that he accepted the thrust of the argument because he had no other option but to accept it. The people of Ireland would not accept those types of titles, labels or designations. It is unacceptable for the Minister to say that because there were only eight people involved they do not matter and we do not have to bother about them.
That is not what I said.
Those eight people are important. They, like everyone else, are citizens of the State. There is no excuse in this regard and I want to press this amendment.
I have sympathy with Deputy Walsh's argument about the terminology used in the social welfare code in describing types of social welfare payments, but it has been in place for some time. It was in place when he and his colleagues were in Government. It has not been addressed. It is being currently examined by the Minister and he will deal with it in time.
In referring to the eight people in receipt of prisoner wife's allowance I did not intend in any way to dismiss them or to say that they were less important. They are important as individuals. I made that point in reply to the contributions made by Deputies Walsh and Wallace. They painted a picture that there would be large numbers of people in receipt of prisoner wife's allowance. What is wrong with the terms survivor's pension, widow's pension or family income supplement? There is nothing wrong with them. As stated earlier, the bulk of the people who will ultimately benefit from this Bill will be in those categories. There is an element of exaggeration in this regard. An issue must and is being addressed, but to a degree Deputy Walsh has overstated his case.
That is ridiculous.
Earlier the Minister said that a No. 3 Bill will deal with a unified lone parents allowance, but we must bear in mind that not all deserted wives have children. We sought to debate the issue of deserted spouses who do not have children and the terminology used in that regard. The term "deserted" may be enshrined in the social welfare code for some time, but the term "wife" must be addressed in circumstances where the marriage has been dissolved. This question arises when discussing a special payment. When a marriage is dissolved one spouse should not be referred to by the term "wife". That matter arises now, but it did not arise before under the social welfare code. When the marriage no longer exists one spouse should not be described as the other spouse's wife regardless of whether that spouse deserted the other spouse or is in prison.
The Minister referred to eight people being in receipt of prisoners wife's allowance, but there are many deserted wives. The term "wife" may affect many people as they will continue to be described as the wife of the spouse who deserted them to whom they may no longer be married. The term "wife" needs to be examined. I would be satisfied if the Minister accepts the principle that the terminology in the social welfare code needs to be changed across the board.
If it helps deal with the matter, I have accepted in principle that the question of terminology must be addressed. I stated it is being examined. This amendment cannot be accepted for the reasons I stated and I accept that Deputy Wallace may not want to accept all the reasons I gave for rejecting it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 17 not moved.
SECTION 11.
I move amendment No. 18:
In page 7, lines 29 and 30, to delete subsection (3) and substitute the following:
"(3) This Act shall come into operation on such day or days as the Minister may appoint by order or orders either generally or with reference to any particular purpose or provision and different days may be so appointed for different purposes and different provisions.".
Amendment agreed to.
Section 11, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported with amendments.