Seán Fleming (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)

I will proceed with my questions on the section. If the Minister of State does not have the details to provide, I am happy to accept a note on them later today or tomorrow. I will not delay proceedings if the information is not available now and will be happy if note is taken of my questions and I am provided with a response later.

Section 5(1) and (2) relate to continuing payments and deal with the situation relating to surviving spouses, cohabitants or civil partners in the case of the death of a parent. However, subsection (3) relates specifically to people whose spouse or civil partner has been committed to prison and excludes a cohabitant. Why is the cohabitant excluded in subsection (3), although included in subsections (1) and (2)?

Again, subsection (3) refers to a situation where the civil partner or spouse - but not cohabitant parent - has been "committed in custody". Does this also refer to people on remand, in custody and awaiting trial? The subsection refers to a person committed in custody for not less than six months. Many of those on remand are on remand for periods far longer than six months. Therefore, why is there no provision here with regard to people on remand? The following line of section 176 refers to a person "committed in custody to a prison or place of detention". Can the Minister of State explain what is envisaged by a "place of detention"? My understanding is that a place of detention deals with minors, for example, St. Patrick's Institution, whereas Castlerea, Portlaoise and Mountjoy are prisons. This seems like tautology. Why are we including a section dealing with spouses or civil partners when talking about people in places of detention, who are, by definition, minors? How many married people would be in a juvenile prison or place of detention? I suspect the answer is none. Will the Minister of State clarify why there is a reference to a place of detention? Perhaps it means something else in the context of female prisons.

Section 176 goes on to state that payment will "continue for a period of 4 weeks after the release of such spouse or civil partner from the prison or place of detention". Why should a woman's payment cease after four weeks merely because her spouse or civil partner has been released from prison? That assumes the partner will return to the family, but that may not be the case. In many situations where a person is sent to prison, the person is not welcome or may not choose to return to the family home. There may be many reasons for that. However, the payment to the spouse or civil partner will now be discontinued after four weeks because the other person has been released from prison, notwithstanding the person in question may not return to the family home. I understand they may have to reapply for payment. This seems unfair. The relationship may be over and the couple may no longer live together. It seems unfair that the payment would only continue for four weeks.

How do the Department of Social Protection and the Irish Prison Service communicate with each other? Does the Prison Service provide information on a daily, weekly or monthly basis to the Department and does it provide the PPS numbers of people being released so that the Department can be aware of spouses in receipt of payment and stop it?

The next section refers to extending the list of Schedule 5 to the Social Welfare Consolidation Act as regards PPS numbers. Is the Irish Prison Service included in that list? How is information provided by the Irish Prison Service to the Department of Social Protection with regard to the date of release of prisoners? In fairness to the Minister of State, I do not expect he has all the answers to hand and I will accept a commitment that the answers will be provided in due course. I wished to raise those points because that subsection caught my eye.

See this speech in context