Vol. 490 No. 3
2 Mrs. B. Moynihan-Cronin asked the Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs the number of parents who have deserted their families or have decided not to live with their families; the number of these parents who are not contributing to the upkeep of their families; the proposals, if any, he has to address the matter; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [10200/98]
The one parent family payment administered by my Department provides income support to unmarried and separated lone parents whose circumstances entitle them to payment under this scheme. This scheme replaced the separate schemes of deserted wife's benefit and deserted wife's allowance which were abolished on 31 December 1996. Persons benefiting under the latter schemes had their entitlements preserved where this was more advantageous to them. A total of 30,400 separated persons are receiving income support under these schemes.
Under Social Welfare legislation, a person has a legal responsibility to support his or her spouse and dependent children. In cases where maintenance is not being paid or is paid irregularly, my Department meets the income support needs of the dependent spouse and children under the schemes mentioned. In these circumstances, the other partner is legally liable to contribute to the cost of the payments and the Department has powers under the Social Welfare Acts to seek a contribution towards the payments. In implementing this provision the Department has concentrated on those cases where the liable relatives concerned, being in employment or self-employment, appear to be in a better position to make some contribution towards the relevant benefit or allowance to their families. This has proved to be a difficult and protracted process. However, out of a total of some 6,700 such cases, over £2 million has been collected from some 500 liable relatives through this system.
It is intended to continue with the development of this process, particularly in relation to those who are defaulting on their contribution obligations and with a view to the institution of civil proceedings for recovery of arrears in appropriate cases.
In addition to separated persons the maintenance liability provision now also applies since May 1997 to lone parents who are unmarried. The persons concerned are being advised of their obligation to seek maintenance in these cases and follow up action will be taken as appropriate.
This issue is causing great concern and hardship to many families, including single parent families. The Minister said payments were being made by 500 out of 6,700 spouses. The others have neglected to support their families. A person on social welfare might not be in a position to support his wife or child but many of these men are working and could afford to contribute towards bringing up their children. The cost of child care is huge and prevents many mothers from continuing their education, returning to work or even getting a few hours off during the week. Can one imagine what £20 per week from the deserting spouse would mean to a single mother bringing up a child on £82.70 per week? The health boards are playing their part by supplementing rent allowance, but at a huge cost.
There is an onus on the Department to follow up those who neglect their spouses and children. Child poverty is a huge issue and we must address it. Many lone parents receive support from their families but others do not, perhaps through no fault of theirs — the family may not live nearby or the parents may be deceased. Many of them live in terrible circumstances while the children's fathers have plenty of money to have a good time. Many such fathers were on social welfare when they became fathers but have returned to employment since the increase in employment. Are these people being followed up and will the Minister give a commitment to compel them to give support to mothers and children? Unless we make them responsible they will feel they can have several families without taking responsibility for them. If they are not made contribute to the cost of bringing up those children, they will think they might as well be irresponsible because it costs them nothing and the Department will pay. I understand the Department and the Minister are under severe pressure, but he will agree that thousands of fathers are neglecting their responsibilities and we must follow them up. How is this being policed? Is extra funding being put towards it? In the long run it would save the Minister's Department and the Department of Health and Children a great deal of money if these people were tracked down.
They are being followed up. This move is based on the 1989 Act. Since its provisions came into force in November 1990, 23,000 payment cases have been examined to determine the spouse's liability to make contributions. It was found that in 25 per cent of these cases there was no trace of the errant spouse, 46 per cent of such spouses were receiving social welfare payments and 29 per cent were either employed or self-employed. An effort was made in respect of the latter group because that is where the best gains would be made but a balanced approach must be taken. We are obliged to recover the money but we must appreciate there are difficult circumstances. As the Deputy will see from those figures, almost half of these separated spouses were on social welfare so there would not be much money to collect from them as liable relatives. It is only among the employed and self-employed that there would be a follow up. I assure the Deputy that the Department is making a definite effort to follow this up. Some 23,000 cases were examined out of a total of 30,000 separated spouses.
When were those figures compiled? It was found that 46 per cent of these people were on social welfare but unemployment figures have been going down so a proportion of that group would probably now be working. This proves my point that it is the disadvantaged who are suffering, and they are becoming more disadvantaged because they have nothing to fall back on.
That was the position as of the end of March 1998. The Department is following this area as closely as possible, given all the circumstances. As the Deputy says, it affects the disadvantaged sector of the community.
We have exhausted the 20 minutes allowed under Standing Orders for Priority Questions and we can only transfer Questions Nos. 4 and 5 to ordinary Question Time.
While you must apply the rules, a Cheann Comhairle, the rules are ridiculous. My Question No. 3 relates to arrears of payments; it affects many people and I considered it important enough to be given priority status but it cannot now be taken either as a Priority Question or in ordinary time. That was not as a consequence of long questions from me. The House should not always have to endure the long replies read out by Ministers. More importantly, perhaps Standing Orders should be changed. It is ridiculous that an Opposition Deputy who wishes to raise an important Priority Question should be precluded from so doing. Will you raise this formally with the Committee on Procedure and Privileges with a view to changing Standing Orders. I also apply to withdraw this question and to re-submit it as the first Priority Question for the next day on which the Minister takes oral questions.
You may re-submit the question. This matter has been raised on Question Time on a number of occasions and it is currently before the sub-committee on Dáil reform. Only 20 minutes is allocated for five priority questions which means that each question should get four minutes but on Question No. 1 today we took 15 minutes——
——of which I took one and a half minutes.
I doubt that; the Deputy is misleading the House.
Perhaps the sub-committee will come up with a solution.
I wish to ensure Question No. 3 is withdrawn and re-listed as Priority Question No. 1 on the next day for this Minister's questions. I do not want it taken as a written question.
As long as it is not de-listed, like certain judges.
