Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 5 Jul 1995

Vol. 455 No. 5

Adjournment Debate. - Recovery of Maintenance.

A Leas-Cheann Comhairle, I thank your office for allowing me raise this matter. In November 1990 regulations were brought into effect to enable the Department of Social Welfare to compel deserting husbands and unmarried fathers to make a contribution towards payment by the State to deserted wives and unmarried mothers. At present, the State is paying social welfare to 25,344 deserted wives and 31,711 unmarried mothers. This represents a total of 57,045. The total net cost to the Exchequer in the current financial year will exceed £230 million.

To date, the State has concentrated on pursuing deserting husbands to make a contribution. No action has been taken to obtain contributions from unmarried fathers. As regards the ability of deserting husbands to make a contribution, of the 15,000 men investigated by the State approximately 4,000 could afford to make some contribution. However, only 219 or 5 per cent are doing so. The present contribution from unmarried fathers is nil.

The annual contribution from the 219 deserting husbands is £330,000 and this represents, in numerical terms, less than 0.5 per cent of the number of women in receipt of such payments. The monetary contribution represents less than 1 per cent of what is paid out by the State. It is a national scandal. There are only four people employed in the maintenance recovery section of the Department of Social Welfare.

Taxpayers who will pay in excess of £230 million to deserted wives and unmarried mothers this year deserve better. They are entitled to expect that those who can afford to contribute should be compelled to do so. What does the Minister intend to do about enforcing the maintenance recovery regulations? It is pointless to have regulations in place unless they are enforced. Either the Minister should admit the regulations do not work and scrap them or he should take the appropriate steps to ensure they are properly enforced. The present position represents the worst form of Irish joke but, unfortunately, the taxpayers who carry the burden are not amused.

That was the kind of contribution I would expect from the Deputy on this very sensitive issue.

The Minister's contributions were not very sensitive when he was on this side of the House.

The "Liability to Maintain Family" provisions in the Social Welfare Acts provide for persons to maintain their dependent spouses and children in accordance with their means. Under the legislation, where a marriage breakdown occurs and a family is dependent on a social welfare payment, the person who is liable to maintain that family must contribute to my Department towards the cost of the family's income support where they have the means to do so.

From 1991 to the end of June 1995, £537,606 was collected in contributions from liable relatives towards the cost of the payment of lone parent's separated spouses allowance, deserted wife's allowance or deserted wife's benefit to their spouses. Liable relatives pay either by way of regular direct contribution to my Department or through family law court orders which are transferred to the Department. Of this amount £163,985 has been received for the first six months of this year.

In addition to these contribution payments, the operation of the maintenance recovery provisions also yielded savings on scheme expenditure of a further £500,000. These related scheme savings arise as a result of the withdrawal of some claims which were actively in payment. For example, some spouses make arrangements to provide adequate support to their families once the Department intervened. Some people are no longer entitled to the benefit or allowance as a result of new information obtained when the case is investigated. Certain other cases of co-habitation or concealed additional means are also discovered in the course of maintenance recovery investigations.

Contrary to what the Deputy may believe, there is no crock of gold to be collected in this area. Of the cases reviewed to date, only about 24 per cent of the spouses with a potential to pay were traceable and working. The remainder were either receiving social welfare payments themselves, 48 per cent, or were untraceable, 28 per cent, for example, living in the UK or the US.

The number of relatives contributing will continue to grow significantly as the Department continues its investigations of the cases on hand. Changes to the liability to maintain provisions in the 1992 Social Welfare Act strengthened the powers of collection and enforcement. Legal proceedings are being considered in a number of cases where the liable relative failed to comply with the legislation.

The new Maintenance Act, 1994, when commenced, will increase the powers available to the Department to trace and seek payment from those liable relatives now resident in other countries.

In relation to unmarried fathers, voluntary groups, such as The Federation of Services for Unmarried Parents and their Children, have raised concerns that the application of the liability to maintain provisions to unmarried parents could lead to fathers not being prepared to identify themselves on birth certificates or to make any effort to support their children.

Partly because of concerns expressed, it was decided to concentrate on putting a workable system in place for those who are married or separated, where a greater maintenance obligation exists, before seeking to recover payments in unmarried parent cases.

A review of the liable relative's provision is being undertaken and in this context a number of issues have emerged. These include: the lack of an appeals mechanism in the legislation; the administrative rules for assessment of ability to pay and the correlation of these to court assessment rules in family law maintenance cases; the effect of the system on existing informal maintenance arrangements, part-time child custody, provision by liable relatives of "maintenance-in-kind", for example, VHI, mortgage repayments, etc. for their spouses; transfer of maintenance from women recipients particularly when they have mortgage commitments and other regular outgoings; the identification and pursuit of putative fathers in unmarried cases; the need to interact more effectively with family mediation services at initial desertion-separation stage to ensure that maintenance issues are resolved then; the tracing of deserting spouses who have disappeared without making any contribution to their families and the provision of resources including staffing of the maintenance recovery unit in the Department.

The system of maintenance determination and recovery is a new one in this country. It is a positive development in ensuring adequate support for separated persons or parents looking after children on their own and also for ensuring that where people have the means to do so, they take responsibility and contribute towards the upkeep of their spouse and-or their children.

I emphasise that this must be implemented with sensitivity in order to avoid the possibility of deepening the divide between parents which may rebound on the welfare of the children of a broken marriage. We must not rush into this like a bull in a china shop and end up in the same position as Britain who did just that.

Top
Share