Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 4 Jul 1990

Vol. 401 No. 1

Ceisteanna — Questions Oral Answers. - Combat Poverty Report.

Eric J. Byrne

Ceist:

3 Mr. Byrne asked the Minister for Social Welfare if he has considered the recent report produced on behalf of the Combat Poverty Agency, "Financial consequences of Marital Breakdown", which showed that most separated wives are living in poverty; if, in particular his attention has been drawn to the report's findings on the difficulties being experienced by women in this situation in obtaining deserted wives payment; if he intends to take any measures to improve the position of deserted wives; and if he will make a statement on the matter.

Mary Flaherty

Ceist:

5 Miss Flaherty asked the Minister for Social Welfare if his attention has been drawn to the recent combat poverty report on the non-payment of maintenance; and if he will make a statement on the implications for his Department of any response to this situation.

Nuala Fennell

Ceist:

14 Mrs. Fennell asked the Minister for Social Welfare if, in view of the recent report of the Combat Poverty Agency on the non-payment of maintenance, he has made any progress on arrangements for the payment by his Department of such persons and to seek rebates from the defaulting spouses.

Richard Bruton

Ceist:

18 Mr. R. Bruton asked the Minister for Social Welfare his views on whether the present provisions for dealing with the situation of deserted spouses is adequate; and if he will make a statement on the finding in a recent combat poverty study that the vast majority of separated women and children would be better off financially on social welfare.

I propose to take Questions Nos. 3, 5, 14 and 18 together.

I welcome the study on the financial consequences of marital breakdown which was recently published by the Combat Poverty Agency. The study contains a clear and detailed analysis of how the statutory provisions governing financial support for separated spouses and their children work in practice. The author obtained full co-operation from my Department in carrying out the study, particularly in relation to a survey of claims for deserted wives' payments on which some of the main findings in the study are based. The completion of major parts of the report and its publication was made possible through financial assistance provided by the Combat Poverty Agency, who are funded by my Department.

The support received by the author indicates the importance which a study of this kind has for social welfare. There are currently over 15,000 deserted spouses receiving weekly payments from my Department and, in addition, allowances are paid in respect of over 27,000 child dependants. It is estimated that total expenditure on the deserted spouses' schemes this year will amount to £67.5 million.

Marital breakdown results in many cases in the family being deprived of the income of the main breadwinner. For that reason such families receive, after the three month period, the same weekly social welfare payment as other families so deprived, notably the families of widows and widowers. In addition, the same contribution conditions apply under social insurance and the same means conditions under social assistance to those who are deserted by the other spouse, as apply to those who are widowed. Accordingly, the cover provided for families under the social welfare code against the consequences of marital breakdown is essentially the same as that provided in the event of widowhood.

The study has shown that up to 20 per cent of claimants for deserted wives' payments do not qualify because they have either failed to prove that they were actually deserted by their husband or that they made reasonable efforts to secure maintenance from him, or both. I have already introduced major reforms to deal with these problems. Parents who are left to look after child dependants on their own are the most vulnerable and the most numerous group in this regard. Under the lone parents' allowance scheme, which will come into operation with effect from next October, all lone parents with child dependants will be entitled to a weekly payment, irrespective of the cause of the lone parenthood or the sex of the parent. The study acknowledges that the introduction of this scheme is a progressive step and in line with the recommendations of the Commission on Social Welfare in this regard.

The desertion condition will now only remain for claimants for the non-means tested deserted wives' benefit and for deserted wives who have no child dependants. The National Pensions Board are reviewing these schemes in the course of examining the application of the principle of equal treatment between men and women to schemes of this nature including, in particular, schemes for survivors. The report of the board is expected to be completed later this year and I will consider what further measures are necessary in the light of the board's recommendations.

One of the main conditions for entitlement to a weekly payment as a deserted or separated spouse is that the claimant had made and continues to make reasonable efforts to obtain maintenance from the other spouse. The new liable relatives provisions will fundamentally alter the way in which this condition will apply in future. At present in cases where the deserting spouse is mainly dependent on a weekly social welfare payment, the claimant is not required to seek maintenance from that spouse, as it is clear that he or she would not have sufficient income to provide such maintenance. However, in cases where the deserting spouse is employed or self-employed, claimants are normally obliged to institute maintenance proceedings, as this is the only means of determining whether the deserting spouse has sufficient income to provide maintenance and, if so, to enforce payment.

Under the new provisions officers of my Department will be in a position to obtain this information directly from the other spouse. In addition, the other spouse will be required to contribute towards the cost of any social welfare payment which has to be made as a result of his or her wilful refusal or neglect to maintain the family. In practice this will mean that my Department and the health boards, in the case of supplementary welfare allowance, will be assuming the major share of responsibility for ensuring that such spouses meet their maintenance obligations. This will result in a significant reduction in the number of claimants having to institute maintenance proceedings

A detailed report on the application of the new liable relatives provisions has been prepared by my Department and the administrative arrangements are being worked out at present with a view to the new provisions coming into force next October. Further legislative changes are also being 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 contributions due by liable relatives.

I have been conscious for some time of the shortcomings of the existing statutory provisions governing financial support for the separated spouses and their children, as they apply in practice. The major reforms in this area which I have introduced go a long way towards dealing with these shortcomings, in so far as they relate to social welfare. My Department will be monitoring the effects of the new measures, in consultation with officials of the Department of Justice, with a view to establishing if any other changes are required to ease the plight of families affected by marital breakdown and to ensure, in particular, that they have adequate income support. Full account of this important study will be taken in the course of the ongoing monitoring of the situation of the families concerned.

I thank the Minister for his comprehensive reply. He will probably agree with me that the report makes very sad reading. It highlights also the horrendous inequality and subsequent poverty facing many women and their children as a result of marital breakdown. In the face of such incredible statistics would the Minister agree that only 30 per cent of maintenance orders are fully paid up, that 87 per cent of orders paid through the District Court clerk are not paid regularly, that 49 per cent are six months in arrears and that 28 per cent of orders were never paid, not even once, to the dependent spouse? In order to overcome these difficulties would he agree with the Commission on Social Welfare and the National Economic and Social Council and support the need for the State to have the power——

I hesitate to interrupt the Deputy but I have to say that the time available under the Standing Orders of this House for dealing with these questions is almost up. The Chair is being generous in saying that.

Two serious questions were asked.

The Chair has no control over Ministers' replies but he does have control over Deputies' supplementary questions.

The only solution is the establishment of a central collections office with responsibility for collecting maintenance due in all cases and in instituting——

The Deputy must come to finality in the matter.

Some of the questions raised are for the courts. When the new liable relative provisions are in place — I hope to have them functioning in October — if it is established that the husband has been failing to regularly maintain his spouse it is envisaged that the Department will then use their powers to directly pursue the husband to pay contributions towards the cost of the social welfare payment being made to the wife. That will be a very important provision. My intention is to ease the burden on wives and to make the situation much simpler from their point of view. The wife may do better if her husband has a lot of money. In any of the cases with which we are dealing there is not very much money involved but in cases where there is a substantial amount of money then it has to be determined in court. I would prefer to proceed along the lines we are pursuing at present and see how we get on. The pursuit of orders made by the courts is a question for the courts.

Will the Minister do it?

Who does the Minister think he is codding? Is it not a fact that for the second year in a row he has assumed powers which supposedly allow him to pursue defaulting husbands? Is it not a further fact that not one single maintenance order has been put into operation as a result of the power which he first assumed under the provisions of the Social Welfare Act, 1989? Is he aware of and has he studied the Australian situation where only one in ten maintenance orders were paid in the past, but where, because of effective action, they reached the point whereby eight out of ten are paid? Is the Minister serious about this issue or is it simply a repeat of last year's good intent where, after 12 months, we find he has absolutely nothing to show for it?

I will hear the Minister's reply but I must tell the House that the time available for dealing with these questions is exhausted.

The question of getting the liable relative provision up and running has been much more complex. I explained that earlier.

The Minister assumed the power a year ago.

I got the power last year. This provision will now come into operation in October. Deputies like to simplify these procedures and ask why is it not done immediately. There are difficulties. There is the question of liaison with the Department of Justice and of sorting out exactly how these provisions will be operated.

They claim to know nothing about it.

That has been done and the provisions will come into operation from October.

A week is a long time for an unsupported wife.

We must now proceed to other questions. Question No. 6 has been postponed. I am proceeding, therefore, to deal with question No. 7 in the name of Deputy Ferris.

On a point of order, what is the position in relation to Question No. 5?

You will have a written reply to it in the ordinary way.

Barr
Roinn