Amendments Nos. 58 and 60 are related and may be taken together by agreement.
SECTION 18.
I move amendment No. 58:
In page 19, subsection (1) (e), lines 23 and 24, to delete "that contains a restriction specified in section 8 (2)" and substitute "in so far as such application is not restricted pursuant to section 8 (2)".
This is a purely drafting amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 59:
In page 19, subsection (1) (h), line 27, to delete "section 11 (1) (b)" and substitute "paragraph (a) (ii) or (b) of section 11 (1)".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 60:
In page 19, subsection (2), lines 30 and 31, to delete "and sections 8 (2) and 16" and substitute ", any restriction pursuant to section 8 (2), and section 16".
Amendment agreed to.
Section 18, as amended, agreed to.
Section 19 agreed to.
SECTION 20.
I move amendment No. 61:
In page 21, between lines 23 and 24, to insert the following subsection:
"(2) Parties to an order shall be required to make full financial disclosure to include income and property of the parties.".
I am including this amendment because, while for the most part it may not be necessary, there are instances where there has not been full financial disclosure of the income and properties of the parties. I would like this enshrined in the Bill and I ask the Minister if he has a difficulty with that?
I support Deputy Keogh on this occasion. It is a desirable and laudable amendment. I do not know if the Minister has a difficulty about including it in the Bill. I can recall instances where full disclosure was not made and it was extremely difficult for one party to get disclosure from the other party. I welcome Deputy Keogh's amendment and I support it in principle. I hope the Minister has no difficulty but I will have to wait and listen to what he has to say.
I support this amendment. I know of examples where it has been very difficult to get full disclosure. It has led to difficult situations in families where awkward questions were asked and people were put under much pressure. It is a good amendment and should be included.
There is no problem with the principle behind the amendment but it is already covered by rules of court. New rules of court will be required following the enactment of this Bill and in that context the rules committee will be requested to look at this area. Accordingly, the amendment is not appropriate but the principle behind it is provided for in the rules of court.
It may be provided for in the rules of court but it is my understanding that it does not work. The Minister said this can be looked at again. This is a genuine difficulty which has been brought to my attention by people who are working in the area of family law and who cited instances where difficulties have occurred.
If it does not work, it is because the rules of court have not been used. If the rules of court are availed of and used properly, the system will work quite effectively. The rules of court have the force of law and they have to be complied with.
If the rules are not complied with and it is brought to the courts attention, they will see it is done and appropriate sanctions would apply. I will examine the wording of the previous rules of court. When the new rules are being compiled by the rules committee following the passage of this Bill, I will ask them to ensure that appropriate sanctions and the necessary force are provided to ensure that full financial disclosure is made. I am fully supportive of that principle and will ensure this is done.
Public representatives experience problems where constituents come to them and say they are separated but that there has not been full disclosure. This may be happening over a period of two or three years where the spouse is not getting co-operation.
The Minister referred to the rules of court. I have no legal knowledge and thankfully I am not familiar with the court scene and therefore not familiar with the rules of court. I am sure there are mechanisms and guidelines as to what should and should not be done. Is the Minister aware that difficulties have occurred? Why have they occurred if the rules of court are there and are supposed to cover them? Could he take that into account when asking the rules of court committee to consider Deputy Keogh's amendment?
I am not aware of any specific difficulties having arisen during the years I was in practice. When acting on behalf of spouses I never had any difficulty in securing the necessary disclosure. When this Bill is passed new rules will be required to administer the question of disclosure of information. It is appropriate to rules of court rather than to inclusion in a Bill.
There are provisions in the rules of court to deal with these situations and under which the judges operate in proceedings of this nature. When the rules are drawn up to cover this Bill, I will particularly request the rules copmmittee to ensure the provisions for the administration of this Bill are tightened up to the maximum extent and appropriate sanctions provided.
The procedure would normally be that if a request is made for information which the court needs to do justice between the spouses and that information is not given and is subsequently ordered by court orders, the person is theoretically in contempt of court and, as Members know, that has serious implications. The essential point is that the amendment has my full support but the place for these provisions is in rules of court and not in the Bill.
I am surprised to hear the Minister saying that he has not had experience of this problem. It is my experience that where there are maintenance orders, it is an extensive problem. Many women find that their husband is simply not stating his full income and has organised his wages or salary in a way to deflate his earnings. That it is actually quite widespread.
I am not making a political point; I am just saying that is my experience. I am glad the Minister is pursuing provisions in the rules of court but the present system is not serving the needs of many women going to court looking for maintenance.
Is the amendment being pressed?
I would prefer to withdraw the amendment because I would like to reflect on it further. I am surprised the Minister has a different experience because, as far as I am concerned, this is a difficulty which arises quite often. I accept the Minister's commitment in relation to the rules of court.
Amendment, by leave withdrawn.
Section 20 agreed to.
Sections 21 to 23, inclusive agreed to.