Vol. 456 No. 4
11 Mr. Molloy asked the Minister for Social Welfare the number of spouses or parents currently making contributions to the Pension Services Office in Sligo in respect of their liability to maintain their families; and the number of cases in which his Department has taken spouses to court for maintenance. [13962/95]
37 Mr. M. McDowell asked the Minister for Social Welfare the number of lone parents, deserted wife's benefit recipients and deserted wife's allowance recipients who have transferred maintenance order payments to his Department; the total number involved; and the total cost in 1994. [13966/95]
42 Ms O'Donnell asked the Minister for Social Welfare the plans, if any, he has to require that single parents obtain maintenance from the second parent of their children before granting them social assistance allowances. [13960/95]
68 Ms F. Fitzgerald asked the Minister for Social Welfare if he has satisfied himself with the manner in which maintenance orders are dealt with; the manner in which the present procedures are operating; the plans, if any, he has to change the procedures; and if he has further satisfied himself with the followup arrangements. [13894/95]
69 Mr. J. Walsh asked the Minister for Social Welfare the total cost in 1994 and to date in 1995 of lone parent's allowance; the steps, if any, he is taking to pursue the other parent in order to ensure that they contribute towards the maintenance of the lone parent and the child. [13937/95]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 11, 37, 42, 68 and 69 together. The "Liability to Maintain Family" provisions in Part IX of the Social Welfare (Consolidation) Act, 1993, are based on the widely-accepted obligation on people to maintain their spouses and their children. Under the legislation, where a lone parent family is dependent on a social welfare payment, the person who is liable to maintain that family must contribute to the Department towards the cost of the family's income support.
By the end of 1994 the number of maintenance orders transferred to the Department amounted to 425 and this figure had grown to more than 530 at the end of August 1995. Total receipts from liable relatives amounted to some £260,000 in 1994. Receipts in 1995 to the end of August amount to some £220,000 and are expected to reach £300,000 by the end of the year. In 92 per cent of cases, the receipts result from the transfer of maintenance orders. At the end of August 1995, 232 liable relatives were contributing to the Department on a regular basis.
Applications to the District Court for an order against a liable relative who fails or neglects to contribute towards the cost of payments to his family will be considered when all other efforts fail. In dealing with such applications the court must be satisfied that the liable relative is able to pay. Cases will be pursued to these lengths where the circumstances warrant this action. No application has yet been made for a court order against a liable relative.
My question related to the steps taken to pursue the other parent to ensure they contribute to the maintenance of the lone parent and the child. There are several thousand lone parents, specifically those in receipt of what was the unmarried mother's allowance. There are also several thousand cads who abandon the mother and child and leave the taxpayer to fund their upkeep. How serious is the Department about pursuing those individuals?
The identification and pursuit of putative fathers in unmarried cases and the need to interact more effectively with family mediation services at the initial desertion or separation stage, to ensure the maintenance issues are resolved are some of the issues that emerged during the operation of the system. A series of procedures are put in place and proceeded with if the Department's officials are satisfied that the person who has gone missing, so to speak, is in a position to pay. The situation of those who are not in a position to pay, those who are dependent on a social welfare payment, such as unemployment assistance, is taken into account because in the normal course of events that individual would be getting the single person's rate.
The operation of the provisions, including their applicability to unmarried parents, is being reviewed in the context of the proposed introduction of a unified lone parent support scheme announced in the 1995 budget. The issues I mentioned will be considered in this context.
Expenditure on lone parent's allowance in 1994 amounted to £170.5 million in respect of 40,700 lone parents. In 1995 it is estimated that £192.6 million will be paid in respect of 44,000 lone parents. Expenditure on deserted wife's allowance is £6.4 million in respect of 2,100 deserted wives in 1994 and £6.8 million in respect of 2,100 deserted wives in 1995. Expenditure on deserted wife's benefit is £65.8 million in respect of 13,700 deserted wives in 1994 and £70.7 million in respect of 14,200 deserted wives in 1995.
They are alarming figures—£170.5 million for 40,700 lone parents last year and an estimated £192.6 million for 44,000 lone parents this year. What contribution is made by the other parents towards the maintenance of those lone parents and their dependants? What steps is the Department taking to pursue these people? The taxpayers are paying up to £200 million to support lone parents and their dependants while, from my information, little effort is made by the Department to ensure the other parent makes a fair contribution to the upkeep of the mother and dependants.
In my initial answer I indicated the procedure followed. An applicant is expected to give information as to the location and identity of the missing parent. The Department then follows up such an application. Members who follow such cases will be aware of the procedures used to ensure as far as possible the elimination of abuse. However there are difficulties in the best run houses, hence the scheme whereby maintenance payments are set against such fathers. It had to start somewhere and it is progressing as indicated by the figures I gave initially. Deputies opposite can be assured the procedures for the protection of taxpayer's interests in such cases are being utilised to a greater extent than in the past.
Does the Minister accept that a figure of £300,000 is insignificant in terms of the £200 million paid to lone parents and deserted wives? He will remember speaking on this legislation which relieved the wife of the onus to pursue the spouse for maintenance. That responsibility was removed to make the scheme more streamlined and effective—the family would not have to recoup the money themselves.
What resources is the Department using and how many staff are detailed to pursue those people? Large numbers of them are not facing up to their responsibility to contribute to the upkeep of their families. They may not come forward and it is the responsibility of the Minister and the Department to pursue them. These are well-heeled people who are obliged to contribute to the maintenance of their families but are not doing so. What plan does the Minister have to deal with this problem more effectively?
Resources are being deployed to do what the Deputy is seeking. A number of issues should be borne in mind. The thinking behind the maintenance recovery measures is that if lone parents require social welfare support as a result of desertion, separation or unmarried parenthood, because of no or inadequate maintenance from their partners, the State is entitled to recover at least some of this cost from the liable relatives.
The problem arises—this is what the Deputy does not address—in that quite a high proportion of such people are themselves in receipt of unemployment assistance or benefit. In that situation it is simple to determine the other partner's income. Areas differ greatly but of cases I have dealt with both in Opposition and in Government, a high proportion involve the Department paying social welfare to the other partner also. In such cases there is not much sense spending time and energy pursuing such people because we have the information at our disposal.
Does the Minister not agree that £300,000 is a paltry sum from a budget of £200 million and that taxpayers will be appalled and aghast when they learn of this? It will only promote greater cynicism. Does he not also accept that it should be mandatory on the fathers—it is mainly the fathers— of children born to single parents to make some provision for the children for whom they were responsible?
I am not sure about the taxpayer being aghast or cynical. I do not wish to be revisionist but the figures I gave relate to a period when the Deputy's colleagues were responsible for the whole Administration.
The Minister should speak for himself. There should be no further fudging.
If the Minister will excuse the pun, it is his baby now.
Let us hear the Minister, please.
I know it naturally follows that the Deputies opposite expect a dramatic transformation on the change in Administration. Dramatic changes have taken place but we need time. We cannot resolve in a short space of time all the problems which arose over a number of years but we are working on that.
The Minister is bluffing now. This blustering will not wash.
The Deputies across the House can be assured that every effort is being made by the Department to pursue fathers who do not accept their responsibilities to their spouses and families. The procedure is in place for each application for lone parent's and deserted wife's allowance and deserted wife's benefit. Particularly in relation to the latter, there is provision to discover the whereabouts and means of the other partner, which is what the Deputies rightly want. It should also be noted that we must be careful not to militate against the interests of the applicants in those circumstances, because that may sometimes happen.
Does the Minister not accept that in his reply to my Parliamentary Question No. 309 on 20 September last he said the information I was seeking was only available in the individual claim files relating to applicants and that it would not be practical, in view of the 44,000 people involved, to extract this information? In other words, the Minister does not have this information and has been bluffing for the last five minutes.
I am concerned that the Deputy should use the word "bluffing" on such a regular basis. It may have been an occupational hazard for him when he was sitting here. I had experience of him, when Minister, bluffing not once but on countless occasions.
Can the Minister not tell the truth?
Allow the Minister to respond, please.
What worries me is that the Deputy now automatically accuses everyone else of doing what he did knowingly. I reject the allegation.
That reply was made on 20 September last and is on the record of the House. The Minister is bluffing.
Answer the question.
