Vol. 474 No. 1
17 Mr. J. Walsh asked the Minister for Social Welfare if he will allocate additional resources in order that a greater contribution is made to his Department by liable relatives in the case of deserting partners; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [2621/97]
As I indicated in my written reply of 19 December 1996 to a question from the Deputy, work associated with securing compliance with maintenance orders is an integral part of the administration of the relevant scheme which involves about 45 staff. Six of these staff deal directly with the liability to maintain family provisions in the Social Welfare Acts.
A new scheme, the one-parent family payment, which was introduced at the beginning of this month, replaces the separate schemes of deserted wife's benefit, deserted wife's allowance, lone parent's allowance and prisoner's wife's allowance. The operation of the liability to maintain family provisions is under review in the context of this new scheme. The staffing levels on this work will be reassessed in the light of work plans arising from the operational review and the implementation of the new scheme.
How much was contributed last year by liable relatives to lone parents?
A total of £1,183,889 has been contributed to the Department by 350 liable relatives since the scheme commenced at the end of 1990.
Does the Minister not think that 350 liable relatives is quite a small proportion given the total number of lone parents involved in this scheme? Does he not also think that six full-time staff for the whole Department is too small to pursue a more realistic contribution from liable relatives who are usually the fathers? Has the Minister any plans to increase the number from six as well as increasing the amount contributed by liable relatives?
As I said in my reply, some 45 staff are involved in administering the relevant schemes. Six of them deal directly with the liability to maintain family provisions. I have no proposals to increase the numbers of staff. A review of the liable relative provisions is under way. In addition, we are monitoring the implementation of the one parent family payment to see how it works in practice. I do not propose to make changes until I see exactly what way that develops.
It might be useful to explain some of the statistics in this area of liable relatives provisions in order to clarify for the Deputy the fact that there is no pot of gold or goldmine available out there. Since the provisions of the 1989 Act came into force on 29 November 1990, some 19,301 cases in payment have been examined to determine liability on the part of a spouse to make contributions to the Department.
The results are as follows. Of those 19,301, some 4,962 or 26 per cent were not traceable. Of the rest, 9,140 or 47 per cent were themselves on social welfare payments, so the possibility of obliging them to make maintenance payments was insignificant. Of the employed and self-employed there were 5,199. Of those, 967 were unable to pay. There were 978 under investigation and 2,509 are to be investigated. Determination orders were made in relation to 745, with 350 of those paying and 343 not paying. On subsequent re-examination 52 were found to be in changed circumstances and not to have a liability. It can be seen that 26 per cent were not traceable. Of the 19,000 checked, 47 per cent were in receipt of social welfare payments. That accounts for about 73 per cent who were not in a position to make a payment or whom it was impossible to find in order to make a claim. I have explained the statistics regarding the balance, and £1,183,189 was collected.
Would the Minister agree that £1 million out of a total expenditure on lone parent allowances and contributions of the order of £300 million is quite small, and that six staff is not adequate to trace so many people? Is the Minister content to allow the taxpayer to pick up the tab for this colossal amount of money? In reviewing the situation, I would like the Department of Social Welfare and the Minister to play a more active role in seeking a contribution from people who have a responsibility in this area.
There is no reluctance in the Department of Social Welfare to pursue these matters. However, close to half of those traced are not in a position to make maintenance payments. It must also be borne in mind that in many cases, separation may have been as a result of violence. Are we to insist that the mother of a family be forced to make contact again with a violent husband when she may have spent years trying to get out of his clutches, in order that we can collect £1 a week from him. There has to be balance. We are dealing with human beings and human relationships and we have to ensure that in trying to save money we do not have the effect of making life hell for even one man or woman. Unfortunately, we have far too much violence against women in our society and it is not my intention to put the screws on through this system in such a way as to make life intolerable for the person we are supporting through the one-parent family payment. Nevertheless, we are not in any way complacent about checking cases and pursuing, in so far as we can, the requirement that a person make maintenance available for his spouse and children. It should be borne in mind that up to half of those traced were not in a position to make any payment and that the administrative cost of ensuring that a payment is made once a payment order is obtained, is very high. The question arises as to whether in the long-term it would be worth the expense of trying to increase the take in this area, bearing in mind that of the 745 orders made it was only possible to implement 350 of them. There are difficulties, and the domestic problems that may be caused for children and spouses and the administrative cost of pursuing a person perhaps as far as the United States of America or Australia in order to get a maintenance payment must be borne in mind.
It is basically a matter of the attitude in the Department to the need for enforcement. It is appalling that there are only six staff chasing thousands of such cases. Somebody who was deemed unable to pay in 1991 or 1992 should be checked frequently and not just written off once and for all. I would draw the Minister's attention to the reply of 19 December in which he said that it is up to the lone parent or the deserted wife in the first instance to look for maintenance. Why should the individual have to chase an abusive partner for maintenance when she would have to hand the money over to the Department. We are spending taxpayers' money. The Minister has introduced new schemes lately, including the one parent family allowance. He must know that there is wholesale abuse of that scheme. There are thousands of people pretending to be lone parents.
The Deputy must proceed by way of question.
Will the Minister not take the opportunity of sending a loud, clear message to people who are fiddling the system that it will not be permitted any longer? Does the Minister accept that as he introduces new schemes to help those in genuine need he must, at the same time, crack down on those who are abusing the schemes and target the resources directly?
I reject the implication in the Deputy's remarks that the problem is the attitude of the Department of Social Welfare. The Department of Social Welfare and the Minister for Social Welfare take their responsibilities extremely seriously in terms of how we spend the resources made available to us by those who pay their taxes and social insurance contributions. I emphasise that for the first time ever a Minister for Social Welfare has made it clear that he is not prepared to tolerate fraud, and the result of that has been seen in the effect on the live register and on other schemes. The liable relatives legislation was introduced by a Fianna Fáil Minister. It provided that the spouse seeking the one parent family payment must in the first instance make reasonable efforts to seek maintenance from the spouse who has departed. If they cannot do that for any reason, we will take that into account and put the necessary procedures in train.
The Minister cannot do that with only six staff.
The Deputy is one of the people who would be jumping up and down here if we sought to take control of the personal lives of individuals in this State. That is what he is proposing I should do.
I propose that the Minister target resources and look after taxpayers' money.
In law, it is the responsibility of the spouse seeking support from the Department to make reasonable efforts to get maintenance. If he or she fails to do that the Department will pursue the matter. I have indicated the numbers of cases pursued and the results. The most significant statistics are that close to half of those identified are in receipt of social welfare payments and are not, therefore, in a position to make a significant contribution, and a little over a quarter are not traceable. From the personal relationships angle, a deserted or separated spouse may face risks in pursuing a spouse or former spouse who departed as a result of violence.
The Minister can do it.
There is also the risk that a person who is maintaining contact with their children and former spouse may be driven away from that contact by the Department's pursuit of maintenance. These are considerations. I presume the Deputy would much prefer a separated husband or father to maintain contact with his children and former wife——
I expect the Department to chase him.
——than that the Department should drive him away to get a job in England or somewhere else because it was looking for £1 or £5 a week from him.
