I assume that Senators will have ascertained from the White Paper that was circulated, and from the report of the Dáil discussions on this Bill, the main changes in the administration of the scheme for children's allowances which the Bill proposes to make. I think, perhaps, I should emphasise that the purpose of the Bill is to make changes in the administrative arrangements and does not in any way affect either the main principle of the measure or the size of the payments made under it. This Bill represents the improvements which experience of the operation of the principal measure has shown to be desirable. It was contemplated, when the main Bill was being framed, that as it was an entirely new departure in this country, experience would show what changes in the administration of the scheme then decided upon would be desirable. We have now had a sufficiently lengthy experience of the operation of the Principal Act to come to the conclusion that certain changes are not merely desirable but are necessary if the intentions of the Legislature, when passing the main measure, are to be given full effect.
One of the outstanding administrative devices adopted, when the scheme of children's allowances was being framed, was the grouping of the population in certain regional areas. It was explained at the time that the idea of grouping the population in regional areas was to facilitate the administration of the scheme. As Senators will remember, the main basis of the scheme was two payment periods in the year, the payment of claimants for allowances during each of these periods being maintained at a uniform rate on the basis determined by the family circumstances on the qualifying dates of which there were also two in the year. It is obvious that any such scheme of administration would involve very heavy administrative work at certain periods of the year only: when the qualifications of claimants were being considered in relation to the qualifying dates and the books of vouchers were being issued to the successful claimants at the beginning of the payment periods. The idea of splitting the population up into groups and having different qualifying dates and different payment dates for each group was to spread the administrative work more uniformly throughout the year and lessen the intensity of the work at any particular period. It has been found desirable to reduce the rigidity of that system, and in devising methods of doing so it has been deemed practicable to effect changes which would be beneficial to claimants. This will also be of benefit to claimants coming under the scheme for the first time. As I have explained, the payment of claimants for allowances during each of the two payment periods in the year was determined by the family circumstances on a qualifying date, of which there were also two in the year. The original scheme involved two qualifying dates and two payment periods for each region. If the qualifying date for a particular region was the 1st May, a family which became qualified by reason of the addition of a third child on the 1st April, would prove its entitlement to the allowance on the 1st May, and proceed to draw the allowance upon the basis of that entitlement for the six months from the 1st August, irrespective of changes in the family circumstances, until the next qualifying date, which would be about six months later. By the new method of administration which this Bill proposes it will be possible to have, in respect of new claimants, not merely two qualifying dates in the year, but six qualifying dates, so that the waiting period will be substantially reduced in such cases.
The system of grouping is being retained, and, in fact, the system of grouping in relation to regions is also being maintained, although regions are not mentioned in this Bill. The Bill merely empowers the Minister for Industry and Commerce to put people into certain groups, which will be based on regions. The advantage of basing the scheme on regions is obvious. In every region, the same qualifying dates and payment periods will apply, and persons will not lose their opportunity to exercise their right to an allowance by reason of a delay in the operation of regulations to which they must conform. Instead of having regions fixed by regulation, they will now be fixed by Ministerial direction, and can be changed according as the flow of population changes. Originally, three regions were fixed, and different qualifying dates and different payment periods were fixed for each of these groups, and that system of administration, on the basis of regional areas, had certain advantages. However, in the matter of administering the Act, as passed, the system of grouping claimants upon the basis of fixed regions determined by Order proved to be too rigid and somewhat different from what had been assumed would take place. Under the new scheme it will be possible to facilitate the continuation of the payment of the allowance in circumstances where people have moved their residence from one area to another. It will be remembered that in the original Act we had quite elaborate provisions to deal with such a case. Elaborate provisions will no longer be necessary. Senators will appreciate that we could constitute the groups on some other basis than that of regions. We could put the names into a hat, for instance, and divide them into equal piles, or we could divide the claimants on an alphabetical basis or a numerical basis, but such methods would lead to complications, and it is considered that the regional system is better, and it is desired to retain it. In order, however, to make the scheme better and to meet the case of a person moving from one region to another, power is being taken to vary the duration of the first payment period after the person has qualified or has changed his residence. That power makes it possible to admit the new claimant into the scheme and to draw benefit as from the date of qualification, and continue to draw benefit during the initial period until the end of the payment period for the year.
Instead of having the fixed areas with two qualifying dates for each area, and two payment periods for each area, henceforth areas can be varied from time to time if the occasion should arise and, by the device of taking power to alter the first payment period, it is possible to introduce an innovation in so far as new entrants can be admitted into the scheme at any qualifying date for any area. There will be for new claimants, as I have said, not merely two qualifying dates appropriate to the area in which they live, but six qualifying dates during the year, and any new claimant can establish entitlement to a children's allowance at any one of those six dates. If the claimant is admitted as having a proper claim under the Act he will, of course, be put into the group to which he belongs according to the location of his residence, but the duration of the first payment period of children's allowance to that claimant will be altered so as to make it conclude at the time at which the current payment period for that group concludes, so that, for subsequent periods, the new claimant will in fact have the same qualifying dates and the same payment periods as everyone else in the locality in which he resides. Henceforth, the old complicated regulations can be dispensed with and the case of a person moving from one area to another can be dealt with by the very simple method of altering the duration of the payment period next after the transfer so as to bring its conclusion into line with the conclusion of the current payment period for the new group area in which he comes to reside.
The next important part of the Bill relates to the qualification of the person claiming the allowance. It will be remembered that under the original Act we deemed it necessary to set out conditions to which, not merely the children should conform, but also to which the claimants themselves should conform: such as, that the claimants should be of Irish nationality, or should be resident in this country for two years, and there was a further condition to the effect that the claimant had to be maintaining the children in respect of which he claimed the allowance, even though the Act did say that the fact that the children were residing with the parent was evidence that he was maintaining them. Leaving that question of maintenance or residence aside for the moment, I want to indicate the changes which are being made in regard to the qualification of claimants. In fact, they have been removed altogether. Originally, the Bill was introduced in the Dáil with a simplification of the qualifications to which claimants should conform. We wanted to make regulations in the case where one parent was of Irish nationality and the other not of Irish nationality, or in a case where one of the parents died, or where one of the parents was residing here and another parent residing outside the country, and so on, but in the course of the statement that I made in the Dáil I indicated that if there is a group of people in the country, with children residing with them, then somebody is entitled to an allowance in respect of the children residing with them. Subsequently, however, I examined my conscience and I came to the conclusion that that was not necessary, and that if there were claims to be made, there could be cases where there would be a number of children and where there would be no persons qualified to ask for allowances in respect of those children, and, accordingly, I decided to remove every qualification except one. The new condition is that on the qualifying date the children in respect of whom the person is making the claim must be clearly resident with that person.
That brings me to the next important change which this Bill makes. The main Act imposed, as a main qualification for a claimant, that he should be maintaining the children. I am proposing that that section should be deleted altogether. While the main Act required us to regard, as proof of maintenance, the fact that children were residing with a person, that has led in many cases to conflicting claims, and, in some cases, to persons not receiving the allowance to which otherwise they might be entitled. Perhaps it might help Senators if I were to give an illustration. A child might be living with its grandparents on the qualifying date. In a great many cases there might be no financial contribution by the parents to the upkeep of the child while it was residing with its grand-parents—the child or children might be residing with the grandparents because of congestion in the home, or because the grandparents were lonely and wanted to have the children with them —but the difficulty was that in many cases we got claims in respect of those children both from the parents and from the grandparents, and it was not easy to determine who was entitled to the allowance. As a matter of fact, in some cases, people were not able to get the allowance to which they were entitled because the children were not residing in the home. In future, the claim can be made by the person with whom the children normally reside. I want Senators to note the term that is used. In the cases I have mentioned the children would be deemed to be normally resident with the parents. I am sure that Senators will agree that we should maintain the link between parents and their children, no matter where they may physically be on the qualifying date, unless it is clearly shown that all contact between the parents and the children is broken.
