I would like to thank you a Cheann Comhairle, for allowing me to raise this matter on the Adjournment and to thank the Minister for Justice for coming in at this late hour to hear it.
The recent report, financed by the Combat Poverty Agency, on the financial circumstances of wives and children who are parties to marital breakdown, called "Financial Consequences of Marital Breakdown" is long overdue. It is devastating evidence that we are only seeing the tip of a very grim iceberg of poverty among women and children, and the findings require a positive political response.
The study, which traced the situation of 1,100 wives who sought maintenance orders from their husbands, paints an unedifying picture of Irish errant husbands as being among the worst kind of scoundrel, and it illustrates how our laws and court system allow them to walk away from their obligations to their family.
The system which has developed through our Courts is humiliating and absolutely demeaning on a wife whose sole income comes from a husband's salary, and who is deemed ineligible for any State funding until she has pursued her claim for maintenance against her husband through the courts.
The results of the study, some of which are that in over 80 per cent of the cases husbands were paying less that £60 per week towards the maintenance of their wives and children, that 60 per cent of the awards were for less than the lowest Social Welfare payments, which were in the region of £33, that only 13 per cent of live maintenance orders were fully paid up and 77 per cent were more than six months in arrears. One statistic shows that in 407 live orders payable through the District Court Clerk, 28 per cent were without a payment ever, 49 per cent were more than six months in arrears, 10 per cent in arrears for less than six months and only 13 per cent were fully paid up.
These daunting statistics are clear evidence that the system for dealing with applications for maintenance orders is not working. I question the point of initiating legislation and putting laws in place if in fact they have such a poor record.
I would like to commend the Combat Poverty Agency for commissioning the report and also Mr. Peter Ward of the law faculty in Cork for doing such a good job of it. It is the first time we have had clear facts of what is happening in the grim underworld of our family courts and to the many powerless women who are in need and, time and again, seek redress at the clinics of the Members of this House.
In 1974 in a paperback I wrote entitled Irish Marriage, How Are You I outlined the situation of these women and their children and the deprivation they suffer. I am sorry to say that, reading this report, nothing has changed in 16 years except that the numbers have increased.
In reality what happens to such women? First, they take out a summons under the 1976 Act. They go for a court hearing which is in private. In most cases they will be representing themselves while the husbands will have solicitors who know the law, the judges, and all the dodges which will reduce the man's liability. There may be adjournments of the case. Eventually there will be a court order for a specific amount. In many instances this is paid through a court clerk, and a wife then has to make weekly trips to him to collect her money. If her husband defaults and goes into arrears she has to go back to the court and seek an attachment of earnings order. The report in question showed that this attachment of earnings order doubled the chances of compliance with a maintenance order, but at 25 per cent of the whole study, it is still very inadequate.
Incidentally, in a hearing for an attachment procedure the court will consider what is called the protected earnings rate, one which the court considers it would be improper to go below in respect of the husband. Nowhere is a protected minimum income considered for the needs of the wife and children. It is a constant battle for the separated wife, and the onus is on her all the time to discover her husband's whereabouts even if this means the humiliation of telling the world, her husband's workmates, his friends and neighbours that he has deserted her. The onus is on her to know how much he earns. What, is all this for if at the end all she gets is a maintenance order for around £33 per week, and even that is uncertain. The system at the moment is so bad that simple measures to change it will not do. We need radical measures such as one which was proposed recently in the United Kingdom and which they are going to put into effect. That is that all maintenance payments awarded by the courts be deducted right away from the father's pay.
Second, I would suggest the establishment of a central collection procedure, which is recommended in the report, to oversee all maintenance payments and be responsible for taking action on arrears and defaults.
Third, I would propose — and this is something that is in the pipeline — that wives of unemployed and self-employed men should have a right of maintenance from the Department of Social Welfare with that Department pursuing the husband to claw back all or part of the maintenance support.
I know that under the new lone parent proposals which are to come into effect in October, reclaiming maintenance will be possible. I wonder about the whole procedure for the administration of this scheme. In answer to Question No. 3 on the Order Paper today the Minister for Social Welfare gave what was not an entirely satisfactory answer to a question about the powers his Department will have under the Social Welfare Act, 1989, to effect clawbacks from liable spouses. In his reply he said that a detailed report on the application of the new liable relatives provision has been prepared by his Department and the administrative arrangements are being worked out at present with a view to the new provisions coming into force next October and that further legislative changes are to be considered in consultation with officials of the Department of Justice which would involve more effective provision being made for the enforcement of court orders in relation to the contributions due by liable relatives.
The Combat Poverty Agency report refers to these powers in the context of the Social Welfare Act, 1989. It states on page 23:
The 1989 Act does not confer any powers on the Department of Social Welfare or the health boards to institute enforcement proceedings on behalf of the wife. The burden of pursuing the husband through the courts in the case of default on maintenance orders for small amounts remains with the wife. Even in the cases where the wife has not secured a maintenance order and the Department or health board has applied to the District Court for a contribution order against the husband, it is not clear how such an order can be enforced. Neither the health board nor the Department of Social Welfare are given power to seek orders under the Enforcement of Court Orders Act 1940 or the attachment of earnings orders.
It seems there is not a great deal of clarification as to what is needed in terms of legislation and what powers the Minister for Social Welfare has. I would like to think that this report is something that could be built upon. I hope we can find a realistic solution to the problems of the wives and children, which are so clearly pointed out in this report.
I would like an assurance that the scheme to be introduced in October will not end up like the dental scheme for the spouses of insured workers which was ill-thought out and ill-prepared. I hope all the consultations will be completed and the necessary legislation in place to enable the smooth operation of the scheme. We should take note of what the report states in this regard. This is a matter for the Department of Social Welfare, but I would also like an assurance from the Minister for Justice who is here tonight that there will be a practical response from his Department and that they will not sit back in the face of the daunting findings of this report.
