Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 28 Jun 1994

Vol. 444 No. 5

Written Answers. - Transfer of Maintenance Payments.

Róisín Shortall

Ceist:

41 Ms Shortall asked the Minister for Social Welfare if his attention has been drawn to the hardship caused to a person (details supplied) in Dublin 9 who has been obliged to transfer the full amount of her £65 a month maintenance payments to his Department under the provisions of Part IX of the Social Welfare (Consolidation) Act, 1993, thus making it impossible for her to continue to pay the mortgage on her house under the Dublin Corporation shared ownership scheme; if he has satisfied himself that her full financial circumstances have been taken into account by his Department; if he will rectify a breach of the principle of natural justice by introducing a right of appeal against decisions such as this which are administrative and not appealable to the Social Welfare Appeals Office; and if he will make a statement on the matter.

Minister for Social Welfare (Dr. Woods)

The person concerned is in receipt of deserted wife's benefit at a rate of £79.10 per week for herself and one dependent child. This is the maximum rate of payment under this scheme for a person with one dependent child.

She was also awarded £15 per week maintenance under the Family Law (Maintenance of Spouses and Children) Act, 1976, in the Dublin Metropolitan District Court on 17 February 1992. This payment is comprised of £10 for herself and £5 for her son.

The "Liability to Maintain Family" provisions contained in Part IX of the Social Welfare (Consolidation) Act, 1993, specify the obligation on people to maintain their spouse and children. Under the legislation, where a marriage breakdown occurs and a family is dependent on social welfare income maintenance, the person who is liable to maintain that family must contribute to the Department towards the cost of the family's income support. This liability may be offset by the transfer to the Department of any maintenance payments which they are making to their spouse in compliance with an order of court.

When the person concerned was awarded deserted wife's benefit her husband became liable to contribute to the Department towards that benefit. Because he was paying maintenance on foot of a court order the legislation required that the moneys payable to the court must be transferred to the Department to offset his liability.

The person concerned was asked to consent in writing to this transfer arrangement on 23 August 1993. Her consent to the transfer of the payments was signed on 25 August 1993. However, no payments under this transferred maintenance order have been received to date by the Department. It is understood that the person concerned has not received any payments under the maintenance order since September 1993.

The legislation does not provide for the offsetting of mortgage repayments or any other repayments against the transferable maintenance order. However, the Department has taken the view that in cases where it is stated in the court order that the amount which the maintenance debtor is to pay the maintenance creditor is in respect of a mortgage, or part of it is in respect of a mortgage, the amount in respect of the mortgage would not normally be transferable to the Department. The maintenance order in this case did not specify that any portion of the payment was being made in respect of mortgage payments.

There are very specific provisions in social welfare legislation relating to the transfer, to the Department, of payments made in compliance with an order of the courts. Because these legal obligations are based on specific facts, there is no perceived requirements for an appeals procedure in these cases. In general, social welfare appeals relate to circumstances where a degree of interpretation may be required. The question of interpretation does not arise in cases of transferred maintenance orders.

The "Liability to Maintain Family" provisions were first introduced in the 1989 Social Welfare Act and came into effect in November 1990.

This scheme, like all schemes, is kept under review. The issues raised by the Deputy will be considered in the context of such a review of the scheme and the relevent legislation.

A full review of the circumstances of this particular case will now be undertaken in the light of the fact that payments under a court order are not being made to either the Department or, as it appears, to the person concerned.