asked the Minister for Finance whether persons in the Civil Service are eligible for allowances, other than allowances under the Children's Allowances Acts, in respect of legally adopted children, and, if not, if he will take steps to have them rendered so eligible.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Adopted Children's Allowances.
The answer to the first part of the question is "No". The matter raised in the second part is appropriate to be dealt with through the conciliation machinery for the Civil Service.
Is the Minister aware that all employees of State Departments—Army, Garda and Civil Service —who have adopted children are the only people deprived of the benefit of the Adoption Act passed by the Oireachtas? Why is it that the Government who are in charge of these Departments deprive these people of the benefits of that Act while everybody else is allowed to get these benefits? Why should members of the Army, the Garda and the Civil Service be deprived of them?
The machinery to which I have referred is the appropriate machinery for discussions of that sort. In fact, it has not been raised through that machinery by the Departments concerned.
Is it not a fact that as a result of the Adoption Act, an adopted child has the same status as a natural born child? Why then do these people with adopted children not get the benefit of the Act?
Is the Minister not aware that the intention of that piece of that legislation was that adopted children would have the same status in every respect as natural children, and why should the Minister now say he is not prepared to give this facility to State servants?
The Deputy should not put words into my mouth which I did not utter. What I said—and what I repeat now—is that there is machinery available for discussion of such a matter. It would be entirely improper, when there is such machinery, to discuss it in a different context and in a different way. While I believe that it is the proper way to deal with a matter such as that, that is, through the machinery provided, I am not alone in thinking it is the proper way because my predecessor took exactly the same line on 24th October, 1953.
Why should the Minister be sheltering behind what his predecessor did?
Why did you not rectify the position when you were over here? You were over here long enough to settle this question, if you wanted to settle it.
The Adoption Act was not in existence while we were over there.
We know that many of the people on that side were against the Adoption Act and the Minister in charge at the time would not go ahead with it. Why should any machinery be necessary at all? Why should these people not get the benefit of the Act as well as any other people? Why should it have to go through any machinery?
Do I understand that the Deputy is advocating that machinery for conciliation and arbitration in the Civil Service is undesirable?
That has nothing at all to do with it.
It has.
Mr. Lemass
What is to be discussed?
Surely a civil servant, a soldier or a guard is entitled to the rights enjoyed by every other citizen of the State?
You are worried about them.