Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 13 Feb 1946

Vol. 99 No. 7

Children's Allowances (Amendment) Bill, 1946—Committee.

Sections 1 to 4, inclusive, agreed to.

SECTION 5.

Minister for Industry and Commerce (Mr. Lemass)

I move amendment No. 1:—

To delete sub-section (1) and insert in lieu thereof the following sub-section:—

(1) A person, with whom, on a date which is for him a qualifying date, three or more children who are on that date qualified children normally reside, shall be qualified for a children's allowance in respect of those children if—

(a) he is on that date an Irish citizen, or

(b) he is a parent of the children and the other parent is (or was at death) an Irish citizen, or

(c) he has, for the two years immediately preceding that date, been resident in the State.

The effect of the change, by the abolition of the original sub-section and the substitution of the new sub-section proposed in the amendment is to qualify for children's allowances the parent of a child where one of the parents is dead, or one of the parents was, if deceased, an Irish citizen. Under the law as it stood heretofore, the only person entitled to qualify was an Irish citizen or a person resident here for two years. Under the change proposed the third class will qualify, that is where one of the parents is an Irish citizen.

Mr. Cosgrave

Can the Minister say if he has come to any decision on the question raised by Deputy Walsh last week, where there were in the family six children, but they were dispersed, and only two remained in the household subsequently? Has there been any solution of the difficulty where a guardian did not qualify for the allowance, although six of the children were under the age?

Mr. Lemass

In that particular case the home was broken up completely. The circumstances of the new home will determine it. One home is entitled to receive the allowance, as I take it the children are under age.

Mr. Dillon

One meets this situation: that of an Irish mother who has died in England, leaving four children with their grandmother, the father being in England. I have such a case in mind, where it was represented that, inasmuch as the grandmother had no legal right to claim jurisdiction over the children, she was not entitled to get the allowance.

Mr. Lemass

Somebody would be entitled to get the children's allowance, either the parent or the grandmother.

Mr. Dillon

The parent does not maintain the children at all. He was in England and had no contact with the children.

Mr. Lemass

If he had permanently deserted the children the grandmother would be entitled.

Mr. Norton

Either the grandmother or the father would get the allowance if there was no evidence of desertion.

Mr. Lemass

One of the changes we are making is designed to avoid certain duplication of claims which arose owing to confusion as between "maintenance" and "residence". The ordinary practice will be to give the parent the prior claim, and to entitle the parent to claim the children's allowances unless there was previous delinquency on the part of the parent.

Mr. Norton

Either the parent or the grandmother will get the allowance?

Mr. Lemass

If either home was qualified in any event by the number of children.

Mr. Norton

The mere fact that the father was compelled to retain his employment in Britain will not disqualify him from getting the allowance?

Mr. Lemass

No.

Mr. Norton

Once there was no evidence of desertion.

Mr. Dillon

It is not easy in the courts of law to displace the claim of a father of children in favour of a grandmother. Is the Minister's Department ready to accept less evidence than a court of law when inquiring into the full rights of a father as against a grandparent, in order to allocate children's allowances to the grandparent? There are many cases of grandparents caring for children, the father of whom may send a £5 note occasionally, but does not send a regular contribution. I have heard of cases of that kind, where it is extremely difficult to establish evidence that a parent was not maintaining children, and in which the grandparents ought to get the allowance.

Mr. Norton

Is there not a provision in the Act that the allowance can be paid in such a case?

Mr. Lemass

It does not arise under this section. The same difficulty arose because the qualifying condition was "maintenance", and "maintenance" was interpreted by the provisions of the Act as "residing with". In other words, the fact that children were residing with a person was prima facie evidence that the children were maintained by that person. That double condition of qualification led to conflicting claims. We are getting rid of that by deleting the word “maintenance” altogether from the legislation, and making the sole condition normal residence, it being assumed that the child was normally resident with the parent, even though the child may have lived with a grandparent or some other relative on the qualifying date. Power is taken to make regulations defining the manner in which normal residence will be interpreted, and regulations made in that way will be binding.

Mr. Dillon

I take it that in the case I envisage, where a grandmother has taken four children, the father being resident in England, subject to other inquiries, prima facie, the grandmother is entitled to receive the allowance when they are resident with her.

Mr. Lemass

I should not like to answer that question straightaway. If the father of the family was a migratory worker in England, who was likely to return in a short time, it might be held that he was the person entitled to claim the allowance. The child is deemed to be "normally" resident with its parents unless the contrary is shown.

Mr. Dillon

Is actual residence not rebutting evidence?

Mr. Lemass

I do not say that it would not be rebutting evidence.

Mr. Dillon

That would be a queer situation.

Mr. M.E. Dockrell

"Residence", then, does not necessarily mean residence.

Mr. Lemass

If Deputies had been present during the discussion on the previous stage, they would have got an elaboration of the argument why this change is desirable. If actual residence on the qualifying date with another relative were to debar the parent from claiming, there would be many parents who would never get the children's allowance, because families would be split up and the qualifying number would not be available. It is only by regarding the child as normally resident with its parents, even though its actual residence is somewhere else on the qualifying date, that the claim to the full allowance can be sustained by the parent. The child will be regarded as normally resident with its parents unless there is evidence that the link between parents and child has been permanently broken.

Mr. O'Leary

I know of a case in which the father of the family was killed. The widow kept two of the children and the grandmother took two. Neither of them is getting the children's allowance.

Mr. Lemass

I do not understand why that should be so. There must be some other circumstance of which the Deputy has not been informed.

Mr. M.E. Dockrell

In the case Deputy Dillon mentioned—the parent in England, sending sporadic payments to the grandmother in Ireland for maintenance of his children—will the parent get the allowance or the grandmother?

Mr. Lemass

I could not answer that question without knowing more of the facts.

Mr. Dillon

The fact is that the father is working in England.

Mr. Lemass

Permanently or temporarily?

Mr. Dillon

As hundreds of other Irishmen are working. So long as he can keep his job, he will stay there. He comes home once in 12 or 18 months. His wife is dead and his wife's mother has taken the four children.

Mr. Lemass

One or other will be entitled to the allowance. The question of entitlement will be decided by the deciding officers, not by me.

Mr. Dillon

We are giving directions to the deciding officer as to how he is to proceed. I want to ensure that if a man, in the circumstances I have described, is not sending a weekly allowance to his mother-in-law——

Mr. Lemass

The question of maintenance does not enter into it at all.

Mr. Dillon

Unless a man is sending a weekly allowance to his mother-in-law to keep the children for him until he can come home and take them into his own house, I think that the mother-in-law should get the children's allowance.

Mr. Lemass

And probably will if the parent has no home or residence in this country.

Mr. Dillon

Will the fact that the children are living with the grandmother and are being maintained by her, although the father sends home a £5 note now and again, be deemed sufficient evidence to rebut the presumption that the children are living with their parent? If that be so, I am satisfied. But I am not sure that it is so.

Mr. Norton

There is a provision in the parent Act by which the money can be given to the parent or guardian.

Mr. Lemass

Deputy Dillon is not dealing with a case where the parent has deserted the children or is unfit to administer the allowance.

Section 5, as amended, agreed to.

Section 6 agreed to.

SECTION 7.

Mr. Lemass

I move amendment No. 2:—

To delete lines 22 to 29 and insert in lieu thereof the following paragraphs:—

(i) if he was on the qualifying date already entitled to an allowance (whether under this Act or the Act of 1944), shall commence on the expiration of the period for which he was on that date so entitled,

(ii) if he was not so entitled, shall commence not later than three months after the qualifying date,

(iii) unless otherwise determined, shall be a period of 26 weeks, but shall not in any case be less than 15 weeks or more than 43 weeks;.

The changes made by this amendment are not substantial. So far as paragraph (i) is concerned, the change is merely a drafting change. There was some possibility of confusion, arising out of the original wording, particularly in a case in which a qualified person had claimed the allowance, but the claim had not been decided before the entitlement already existing on the qualifying date ceased. The final change provides a minimum period for the duration of a payment period. There was no such minimum in the original Act. It is now provided that it shall not be less than 15 weeks.

Amendment agreed to.

Section 7, as amended, agreed to.

Sections 8 to 14 and Schedule agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported with amendments.

Report Stage fixed for Wednesday, 20th February, 1946.