Social Welfare (Children's Allowances) Bill, 1952—Second Stage.

Minister for Social Welfare (Dr. Ryan)

I move that the Bill be now read a Second Time. This Bill implements the increases in children's allowances announced by the Minister for Finance in his Budget statement. Whilst the increases then announced have not been altered in amount, a change has, however, been made in the basis of payment. Instead of being paid weekly the allowances will on and after the 1st July next be paid on the basis of the calendar month. The new rates will be 11/- a month for the second qualified child in a family and 17/6 a month for each third and subsequent child. As compared with the present rates the payment for the second child is new whilst the payment for the third and subsequent children represents a weekly increase of 1/6 for each of those children. The cost of the new proposals in a complete year will be around £2,800,000.

Apart from the rate changes, this Bill, as Deputies will have realised, is an administrative measure. I do not now propose to go over the details of the changes proposed in this respect; they have already been fully explained in the Explanatory Memorandum which accompanied the Bill. I think it well, however, to give the House the reasons which weighed with the Government in agreeing to change the method of payment from the weekly to the calendar month basis.

Children's allowances are in a different position from other payments made under the social welfare schemes. They stand by themselves, not being coupled with any other payment. They are relatively small in amount. It is felt that beneficiaries should be given the opportunity of devoting the allowances to what in the family budget may be ranked as long-term expenditure, such as the purchase of clothes and foot gear rather than to maintenance from day to day. As the allowances are relatively small in amount, it is only by changing the basis of payment and making a larger amount available in one sum that people can be expected to carry out this idea. There is little doubt that on the monthly basis the children stand a better chance of having their special needs provided for.

It is found that, at present, many persons refrain from cashing their orders until they can collect something substantial. In fact, this is probably the most frequent cause of orders going out of date and becoming uncashable. Probably most of the people who do this do so as a means of saving either as an end in itself without any particular object of expenditure in view or to make up the price of something like a Confirmation outfit. I think myself that this tendency to save should be encouraged and that any change tending in that direction is all to the good. Incidentally, I am taking power in the Bill to extend the period during which orders may be cashed to six months.

While the decision to make the change has been taken for the social reasons which I have given, the change as it happens will also have administrative advantages. It should help to relieve congestion in post offices, and the expenses of payment and auditing should be reduced.

In conclusion I wish to add with regard to the abolition of the present system of qualifying dates and fixed payment periods that the change here will bring about a shortening of the delay that, at present, occurs before payment commences. This delay is a necessary, if unwelcome, feature of the present system. In the future it is hoped to begin payment on the first day of the month following the month during which the person becomes qualified by having two qualified children normally residing with him, if the claim is made within three months of his becoming qualified. I want to emphasise the point that children born during the month of May, say, will commence to qualify on the 1st June if a claim is made within three months of the date of their birth. It is intended that the allowances will be payable on the first Tuesday of each month; for example, the payment for July will be made on the first day of that month. The Bill is a very simple one as far as understanding it is concerned and with the Explanatory Memorandum I feel that it is not necessary for me to say any more.

Mr. Sweetman

Would the Minister mind answering a question? Can he divide his figure of £2,800,000 between the cost of the new provision for the second child and the additional provision for the third and subsequent children.

Dr. Ryan

It is just slightly more for the second child.

Mr. Sweetman

Slightly more than half?

Dr. Ryan

Yes.

Breanndán Mac Fheórais

We welcome the Bill but it seems like welcoming friends to a funeral. We are glad to see them but are sad because of the circumstances in which we meet them. The friend in this case is the Social Welfare (Children's Allowances) Bill and the corpse is the Budget which put a damper on the whole business. We are very glad to see the Bill but under the circumstances of the Budget proposals these benefits are a mere crust to the hungry worker who looked forward to an increase in children's allowances. A simple calculation will show that this Bill in respect of the normal sized family goes only about 50 per cent. of the way to compensate for the increase in price of four or five foodstuffs from which the subsidies were withdrawn in the Budget. So much has been said, however, about subsidies on the Finance Bill and the Budget that I do not intend to develop the point any further. It is a good Bill inasmuch as there are increases and that there is now an allowance in respect of the second child.

I would not be enthusiastic about some of the administrative changes proposed by the Minister. It is true that there are many who do not draw the allowances weekly but prefer to let them go on for a month or anything up to three months, but I know of a big number of families who have been in the habit of devoting the children's allowance, whether it be 5/- or 7/6, to the payment of the rent of their house. They looked forward to that as local authorities especially in towns have laid down the regulation that the rent must be collected weekly. I would humbly suggest to the Minister to accept an amendment which I propose to table for the Committee Stage which will allow people the option of monthly or weekly payments. The Minister did say there were quite a number who let the payments go and drew them after a month or two, but I think they would be in the minority and generally I think that if they had the option people would elect to receive children's allowances weekly.

A very welcome feature is the abolition of the system of qualifying dates. That has been responsible through its intricacy for losing the children's allowance for a six months' period to people who were not conversant with the filling in of forms and who encountered difficulties regarding the business of the qualifying dates.

That is a very welcome feature because now the regulation as regards applying for and receiving the children's allowance is very much simplified.

I would merely advocate, in conclusion, another change which would, in effect, be a charge on the Exchequer. Despite that, however, I would ask the Minister to consider it. The children's allowances are now paid in respect of children who continue at school up to the age of 16. In other cases, I think, the age is 14. I would ask the Minister to consider the continuance of these payments to all children who are still going to school. There are a number who continue at the secondary schools, whether Christian Brothers' schools or schools under the direction of other religious orders, up to the age of 18. From the age of 16, to the time they leave school, represents a period of unusual expense for their parents. At that age they like to be a little bit better dressed and they demand things that they did not demand when they were slightly younger. In conclusion, I would ask the Minister to consider allowing the recipients to opt for a weekly or a monthly payment, and to consider seriously the continuance of children's allowances until the children have ceased going to a secondary school.

Mr. Briscoe

I want to say that, obviously, we must all welcome this Bill. I do not, however, understand the approach made to it by the last speaker if, say, he was speaking on behalf of his Party. As I understand it, the idea behind the introduction of children's allowances was for a specific purpose. The time had been reached when persons in employment were paid wages irrespective of their home conditions. You had, maybe, a single man and a married man with a large family working side by side on the same kind of work and getting the same wage. Obviously, the man with the family could not have the same standard of living as the single man or a married man with no children. Consequently, as I understand it, the idea behind the introduction of children's allowances was to try and raise the standard of living in the home of the man with a family so that it would be nearer to the level of his neighbour who had no family.

The Deputy who has just spoken did not approach this measure in that way. His attitude was that this was a measure to relieve poverty. I have never heard the subject approached in that manner before, and I was surprised to hear him speak in that way. Does he believe that was the reason why children's allowances were introduced?

Breanndán Mac Fheórais

How could my remarks give the Deputy that impression? I do not ask the Deputy to quote me accurately.

Mr. Briscoe

My recollection of the Deputy's speech is that he related this Bill to the poor and the hungry. I am just pointing out that that was never the idea underlying children's allowances. All of us, I hope, stand for a reasonably decent wage for our workers so that they will be able to maintain a decent standard of living. We all know that where the circumstances in the homes of workers are different, due to extra charges as the result of one man having a family and his neighbour not having any family, the same standard of living could not exist.

It is a good thing that the Government finds itself able to make an advance on the sum provided in the original Act of 2/6, with an allowance for the third child and those over. I hope that, as time goes on, this Government or some Government of the future—I hope this Government—will be able to bring in a proposal for a minimum payment in respect of children's allowances of 5/-. I hope, too, that there will be a full appreciation of this social service and of this social outlook, and that it will be properly felt when the cost of commodities falls and scarcities will be forgotten. When there will be a fall in the cost of living, I hope that this particular contribution from the State to even up, mainly amongst the working people, their standards of living by putting them on the same level will be fully appreciated.

The last Deputy in the course of his speech, referred to the removal of the food subsidies. I think he might have left that out of this discussion. All that was discussed on the Budget. This is an item which should be discussed on its own merits. I suggest that it was a dangerous thing to suggest that it has any relation to the subsidies, because if that were to be accepted, then if the cost of foodstuffs and of the essentials of life were to fall further, you might have it suggested: "Remove now the children's allowances because they are not necessary."

Breanndán Mac Fheórais

Perhaps the Deputy would allow me to intervene for a moment. Did not the Minister for Finance in his introduction of the Budget relate the new proposals in respect of children's allowances to the withdrawal of the food subsidies and describe them as partial compensation?

Mr. Briscoe

I do not know that he could have done that in the words the Deputy has used. I have already said that the idea behind the introduction of children's allowances was for a specific purpose. This is a payment that has no means test applied to it. It is not taken into consideration by the income-tax authorities or by any local authority in fixing the income of a home. It is an item which is specifically meant for the benefit of the children. Consequently, I welcome it. I express the hope that in the not distant future the Minister for Finance will be able to bring the payment up to the figure of 5/- for all children.

Mr. Rooney

I welcome this measure. I cannot agree with the view put forward by Deputy Briscoe that this should be some kind of an untouchable gift. This money which goes into the house of a worker is a very different type of gift from the money which goes into the house of a rich family. Both families are entitled to it if they have the requisite number of children. Surely, Deputy Briscoe is not going to argue that the children's allowance will be applied to the same purposes in the household of a rich family as it will in the household of a poor family. This is money and not just an unusable gift, something to be admired. It is, in fact, something to be applied. The well-to-do family will apply the money in a different way from that in which a poorer family will apply it.

The benefit which this allowance appears to bring to people has been overshadowed by the Budget proposals. The figure of 1/6, I think, has been mentioned by the Minister. Strangely enough 1/6 is the figure which it was calculated would be the extra charge as regards old age pensioners and other classes who would want one kind of benefit or another.

We cannot tie up this 1/6 with the calculation that the Budget is going to impose, on the average, burdens of 1/6 per head on the people. We know ourselves that any child in his health could eat a loaf of bread while waiting for his breakfast.

Major de Valera

At what age?

Mr. Briscoe

You are speaking as a father, I suppose.

Major de Valera

At what age would he start?

Mr. Rooney

Deputies do not appreciate that a child is a child even up to the age of 12 and 14 years.

Captain Cowan

Some of them are children up to the age of 40.

Mr. Rooney

I have not reached that age yet, so I cannot say. This is a relief rather than a benefit and we must approach it in that respect. We must welcome this Bill, because it is going to be a relief rather than a benefit to many of the poorer sections of the community. It is, in effect, a compensation for the higher prices which will result from the withdrawal of the food subsidies.

Captain Cowan

I welcome this Bill, and I feel it is a very important advance in our social legislation. I remember, and most Deputies in this House remember, the long campaign that was carried on for the purpose of getting the principle of children's allowances adopted. As Deputy Keane reminds me, there is no doubt about the fact that when I was in the Labour Party, children's allowances were one of our fundamental objectives. I feel that the Government who introduced that deserved congratulation at the time on two grounds, firstly for introducing it and secondly for taking the important step of providing that it would be paid without any means test.

In my view those were the two most important considerations in regard to the Bill providing children's allowances. Children's allowances have been a wonderful benefit to families in every part of the country. I have come across instances time after time in the city where calculations were being made in regard to this, that or the other and where the importance of the payment of children's allowances was clearly demonstrated by the parents who were receiving them. A very big step has been taken—a step making provision, at a very substantial financial cost, for including the second child in a family under the scheme and for increasing the payments in respect of the other children.

If this Bill were introduced at another time, a time which one might term a quieter period in legislation, the Minister would be justified, instead of bringing it in in this quiet and modest way, in bringing it in with a clamour of brass bands and propaganda of all kinds. It is a very important measure—a measure that is going to do untold good all over the country. I agree with Deputy Briscoe that it is wrong for Deputies to say: "This Bill is being provided as an offset to increases in family costings due to the removal of subsidies under the Budget."

Mr. Rooney

The Minister for Finance said that.

Captain Cowan

I am not talking about the Minister for Finance but about the argument. After all, these costs may be reduced in time. I believe that after July, when there is competition as between the flour millers and the bakers, there will be a reduction in the price of bread. I have no doubt about that. I believe also that it is likely there will be some reduction in the cost of tea, although it is not a very big item in the family budget. I do believe that there will be a reduction in its price and that the brands and qualities of tea will be as good as those available at the moment. I firmly believe that other essential items will be reduced in price as time goes on.

Mr. Rooney

How do you know?

Captain Cowan

I cannot look sufficiently far into the future, but whether there is or there is not a decrease in prices, the fact is that, as a result of this Bill, a substantial sum of money will go into the homes of the people in which there are children.

If this Bill was introduced in different circumstances, every Party in the House would be represented here. The Front Benches of every Party would be here to deal with such a wonderful advance in our social legislation. However, nobody seems to bother about it. The Minister brings in his Bill, and he explains it. It is set out in the explanatory memorandum. One is entitled to expect that all the Parties in opposition would be present in this House and would be welcoming this measure with open arms instead of giving it this half-hearted expression of welcome.

How is this Bill going to affect the families? A family having two children who were getting nothing by way of children's allowances up to the present will now receive £6 12s. every year. Such a sum of money will be welcome in houses in the rural areas, and it will be fully appreciated.

Mr. Rooney

It will be welcomed in Ballyfermot.

Captain Cowan

This increase will also be appreciated in the cities. A family of three children at present receiving £6 10s. by way of children's allowances will, as a result of this Bill, get £17 2s. per year, that is approximately an increase of £11.

Mr. Hickey

A family of how many children?

Captain Cowan

A family of three children. That represents a very substantial increase.

Mr. Rooney

What about the food?

Captain Cowan

Deputy Rooney gets on my nerves.

Mr. Rooney

I am sorry, but they will have to eat.

Mr. Briscoe

They had to eat before the Fianna Fáil Government gave them allowances.

Captain Cowan

A family of four children will, as a result of the new Bill, get £27 12s. every year compared with the £13 per year which they are getting at present. That represents an increase of £14 12s. which is a big sum when one looks at it from the point of view of persons particularly in the rural areas of the country. A family of five children who get £19 10s. will get £38 2s. under this Bill. That is a very important and substantial increase. A family of six children instead of £26 now will get £48 12s.; a family of seven children instead of £32 10s. will get £59 2s.; a family of eight children instead of £39 will get £69 12s.

Mr. Rooney

What will the average family get?

Captain Cowan

I do not know about the average family.

Mr. Rooney

What will a family of 14 get?

Captain Cowan

I have a family of 11 children myself. I have not reached that stage, so I do not know. A family of nine children instead of £45 10s. will get £80 2s., and for ten children instead of £52 they will get £90 12s.

As I say, this is a Bill the importance of which does not seem to be appreciated by the Deputies in this House but it will be appreciated in every house in the country in which there are children and, as I said, it is brought in without any blare of trumpets, without any brass bands or without any of the paraphernalia of propaganda that one usually associates with a measure such as this.

Mr. Briscoe

On a point of order. Deputy Rooney has given expression here to something which I think should be taken off the records of the House and withdrawn. There is a case in which I am interested in the court which is still sub judice. The Deputy has said: “Rotten Salami” and I would ask him to withdraw it. I did not ask the senior counsel to withdraw it when he interjected that, because he should have known better than to refer to a case that is sub judice.

Mr. MacBride

Surely you can refer to salami without referring to a court case.

An Ceann Comhairle

I did not hear any reference by Deputy Rooney to salami. If there was a reference to a case that is sub judice it should not have been made.

Mr. Briscoe

I hope it will not appear on the records. The Deputy made it.

Mr. Rooney

Could you get them changed?

Mr. Briscoe

The Deputy knows he made the remark and he suggests that I will get it changed because you, Sir, have not heard it. The Deputy should learn manners and observe the rules of order.

Mr. Sweetman

Nobody except Deputy Briscoe referred to a court case.

Mr. Briscoe

He made a personal reference to me.

Mr. Rooney

And so did you.

Mr. Briscoe

He made a personal reference to me about a matter which is sub judice.

An Ceann Comhairle

These discussions will have to stop and interruptions will have to stop. That is a warning to all Deputies.

Mr. Sweetman

If that was enforced it would be very welcome all over the House.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Chair would have a busy time.

Mr. Sweetman

Particularly with Deputy Cowan.

Captain Cowan

What is wrong now?

Mr. Sweetman

I am referring to the interruptions.

Captain Cowan

As I say, this Bill is a Bill that will be welcomed in every house in the country. It is a Bill that will bestow inestimable benefits; it ought, in my opinion, to be accepted by this House as what it is, a substantial advance in social legislation and it ought to be accepted without any discussion. The Minister has made the suggestion or does so in the Bill that the payments should be made monthly instead of weekly. Undoubtedly, monthly payments would lead to expedition or, rather, more efficiency perhaps in the administration. It may lead to a reduction of staff, in administration, and if it does that it will also help in its own little way to reduce the cost of government. I do not know whether there is any great objection or whether there could possibly be any great objection to paying these amounts monthly as long as a family is sure of getting this money and so long as the family spend it well, as they do. There are many instances of which I have personal knowledge in the City of Dublin and outside in which this money is generally received by the mother of the family and is expended properly in the interests of the family. Perhaps it is just a matter of opinion; it may be that the monthly payments may be of more benefit than the weekly ones. Anyway, I think it would be well to give that a trial. We would know after a period whether the monthly payments idea was or was not the better idea, and if it was not we could revert to the weekly payments. This is a Bill which should, unless there is some objection that I am not aware of, pass all stages this evening and we should finish this day's work by completing the Bill as far as this House is concerned.

Mr. Rooney

Could the Deputy say how much a family of 14 would be entitled to?

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputy Rooney should make his own speech.

Mr. Hickey

It was interesting to hear Deputy Cowan saying that this Bill should go through without discussion and yet he discussed it for over 20 minutes himself. As Deputy Corish said we all welcome the Bill and we hope it will be improved. I found it difficult to follow the reasoning of Deputy Briscoe as regards his criticism of Deputy Corish. There is no difference between what Deputy Corish said and what Deputy Briscoe said as to what is the principle behind family allowances. It is, as both Deputies said, that men with equal incomes, one having five, six or seven children and the other having none, would have their incomes more or less equated as a result of the family allowances. It is a question of giving the family man a similar standard of living by helping him to rear his children. There is nothing to gain by questioning Deputy Corish's reference to this Bill. We were advocating this Bill years ago in the Labour Party——

Mr. Briscoe

But we introduced it.

Mr. Hickey

For goodness' sake let us not be always boasting of what has been done by either side. There is a lot more to be done and we should be doing it. Deputy Corish was not saying anything contrary to what is in our minds about the family allowances Bill. I would appeal to the Minister that he should continue the family allowances to the children while they are going to school because anybody who is a parent knows that the children are doing their leaving certificate in the secondary schools up to 18 and 18½ years of age. By stopping the allowances at 16 years of age you are cutting them off at the most expensive period when the family requires the money. We should continue paying it while the children are going to school—that is, up to the time they get their leaving certificate.

On this question of monthly payments, my own view is that it might be a good thing to pay it monthly and it might be better and it might suit a lot of people if the payments were made monthly or quarterly, as the case might be. But we must not forget this fact: that there are thousands of families whose parents find it very difficult to meet the weekly budget, and I have especially in mind people who are unemployed and who are forced to seek the dole at the labour exchange.

When they saw in the papers that the allowances were to be paid monthly, some people came to me and pointed out that it was unfair to ask them to wait for them for a month. They were very well able to tell me, in their own simple and sincere way, how advantageous it was to them to have it paid weekly. I put forward something similar to what the Minister says, that they could perhaps make better use of it by drawing it at the end of a month or at the end of a quarter, but I can assure the Parliamentary Secretary that the parents I have in mind can make as good use of 1/- as anyone in this nation or any member of this House. It does not mean very much to the man with two or three children, but there are a number of other parents with families of seven and eight. Take the case of a mill worker or a man employed in a warehouse. His wages are about £6 5s. a week. The purchasing power of that must be calculated on the basis of the value of the £ being 9/-, and, where the weekly amount of allowances comes to a sum like 24/-per week, we can appreciate how badly that man and woman will need the weekly payment to make ends meet. I suggest that that aspect be considered.

I am at a loss to follow Deputy Cowan's reasoning that we should accept all these things without discussion. I do not know what his object is, but I will leave it to himself. There is no good in telling us about the big amount we are paying, because it all depends on what you can get for the £ and the standard of living of any individual must be related to what he can get for his money, whether it be £1, £10 or £20. There is no good in trying to convince ourselves that we are paying a big allowance, because we are paying 2/6 for the second child and 4/- for the subsequent children, because the purchasing power of the £, as the Taoiseach told us last week, is only 9/- and we know then the purchasing power of 4/-.

I am trying to discuss this matter on its merits, as we should discuss every problem, without any makebelieve or wishful thinking, and I am asking the Minister to reconsider the question of providing for a continuance of the allowance until the children have left school, because, as Deputy Mac Fheórais rightly said, to cut off, at the age of 16, the boy or girl going to a secondary school who will not get the leaving certificate until he or she has reached the age of 17 is a very grave hardship.

Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Social Welfare (Mr. Kennedy)

Deputy Hickey has spoken about the monthly payment as against the weekly payment. He took the case of a typical mill worker and told us how useful the weekly allowance was to him in respect of a family of six. If that man is guaranteed a £4 cheque by the State every month, is it not a good guarantee of credit for that man?

Mr. Hickey

You heard my views on this question.

Mr. Kennedy

I am putting up that point in answer to Deputy Hickey: There is a lot to be said for a cheque for something more than £4 every month, instead of a weekly payment.

Mr. Hickey

I am talking about the unemployed man and man in casual employment.

Mr. Cogan

In common with other Deputies, I want to congratulate the Minister on introducing this Bill. I was not too well impressed by the attitude of the chief Opposition Party in putting up their youngest child to speak on the Bill. He was not very enthusiastic in his support. While the cost of living is high and although the benefits may not appear so formidable, the fact must be recognised that this Bill is a permanent Bill, and the increased allowances given are of a permanent and lasting nature. Whatever changes may come, the family can look forward to 4/- in respect of each child, with the new provision of 2/6 for the second child. The provision for the second child is a very far-reaching provision, and it must be remembered that the cost of making that provision is very considerable. It is important to remember that a very substantial sum of money is being made available under the Bill and that it is being made available mainly for those who are most in need of it.

There are many who say, as Deputy Cowan said, that children's allowances in their broad principles are not subject to a means test, but it must be understood that those who come within the income-tax code do not derive the same benefit proportionately from these allowances as those in the smaller income group. For that reason, I would say that the main benefit of the Bill goes to the ordinary wage earners and people in the lower income class, and I think that is right. The principle of the Bill is good and the principle of the original Bill is good. It is a good thing to try to even up the standard of living as between the married man with the family and the single man. In a society such as ours, and particularly in a nation such as ours, with its limited resources it is not possible to pay to every worker a wage sufficient to meet all the demands of a large family and, therefore, there is much to be said for the principle of providing an additional allowance out of State funds for the man with the family. We can look forward with confidence to a time, though perhaps not in the immediate future, when money will be worth more. I cannot see any great prospect of food prices coming down, but there is a possibility and a probability that other essential items will be reduced, that clothing, boots and fuel may become cheaper. Then the standard of living of our working people will be considerably raised by reason of these family allowances.

I am inclined to agree with those who favour the payment of children's allowances weekly in certain cases. There are many families who prefer to draw it on a monthly basis, but I happen to know quite a number of agricultural workers with large families who find it difficult to arrange their budget so as to make their accounts square over a week.

There are many mothers who, after receiving the husband's wages on a Saturday night and purchasing the necessary requirements for the family, find that, by Wednesday, when the children's allowances are due, it is a very welcome addition. It means that there are two pay-days in the week, though the amount may be small in the second case. A case could be made for weekly payment in such circumstances, but the change might involve considerable administrative difficulties. I know it may be reasoned, as the Parliamentary Secretary reasoned, that the fact that the amount is due each week may be taken as good security for the provision of necessary foodstuffs. I am not pressing the point very strongly on the Minister, but I am sure he will recognise that there are certain families who welcome the second pay-day, if one may so describe it.

I do not think it was right for Deputy Rooney to speak so disparagingly of the allowance. The raising of it means, in the case of a large family of ten, an increase from £52 to £90 18s. in a year.

Mr. Rooney

How many in a family of ten would qualify?

Mr. McGrath

Nine could—there could be triplets or twins.

Mr. Cogan

When this Bill comes into operation, this family will receive £90 10s. per year, and then, if they could manage with Deputy Rooney's assistance to keep a few of those dual purpose hens, perhaps they could supplement it.

Mr. Sweetman

There used to be a time when members of the Fianna Fáil Party, as soon as Deputy Cogan rose to speak, would troop one after another out of the House. Now they are inclined to stay, and I wonder whether it is to see if his speech is sufficiently sycophantic as to qualify for admission to the Fianna Fáil Party. Apart from that aside, which I could not resist, I want to ask the Minister a couple of serious questions. If we assume, for the purpose of discussion, that the amount which will be available for the payment of these allowances is £2,800,000, can the Minister give us any figures as to the way in which that amount could have been divided, if, instead of paying an allowance for the second child, there had been increased allowances for subsequent children after the third on some ascending scale?

I agree with the approach to these allowances that has been made by Deputy Briscoe. I think they are paid for the purpose of evening up the fact that a worker in industry with large family responsibilities is working side by side with a worker in industry who has not got the same amount of responsibility. That is the correct approach and if Deputy Briscoe sits down when the volume of the debate comes out and reads Deputy Corish's speech he will see that Deputy's Corish's objection to it was that the Minister for Finance looked at the problem in an entirely different way and related it to the Budget. I think the other method is the right one.

Mr. Briscoe

I do not know if Deputy Rooney will agree with that.

Mr. Sweetman

Without arguing about the amounts, I would like to know if the Minister has considered, instead of making an allowance payable for the second child, leaving the third as it is and increasing the amounts payable for the fourth, fifth, sixth and subsequent children on an ascending scale, dividing up the total he has available in such a way that the people with really big responsibilities would get proportionately the larger share.

The other question I want to put to him is on the subject of income-tax. In the Finance Act of 1944 it is provided that children's allowances are exempt from income-tax and are not to be treated as part of means for assessment to tax. That exemption refers to the children's allowances payable under the Children's Allowances Act of 1944. I assume that the effect of Section 1 (2) of this Bill, by which this Bill is construed with the 1944 Children's Allowances Act, automatically brings the scope of the allowances paid under this Bill into the exemption that is included in subsection (4) of the Finance Act, 1944, and that automatically without specific reference the allowances are exempt from taxation and are not accountable as means.

I want to go further in this respect. In the Finance Act, 1944, alterations were made in the rate of allowances given to income-tax payers with children, computed to offset the fact that the children's allowance was universally payable.

So far as I can see, in this Bill or in the Finance Bill that is before the Dáil there is no similar provision. Can the Minister tell us therefore whether the allowances that will be paid under this Bill will be paid to income-tax payers without alteration in the rate of allowances that is granted for children under the relevant Finance Acts? In one way, it is not an amendment perhaps for this Bill, but it is obviously relevant to the discussion of it.

I think the administrative changes adduced here are good changes, but I would ask the Minister one further question. When the Minister was considering administrative changes in this Bill did he consider the case that was put to his predecessor, Deputy Lemass, the Minister for Industry and Commerce, who handled the Principal Act, that the allowances should be paid to the mother rather than to the father, or has it been found satisfactory in practice to pay the allowances to the father? At that time there was a fairly considerable volume of opinion that the allowances would be better paid to the mother rather than to the father. When I was in the rarefied atmosphere of another Chamber not so very far away from here, there was a discussion in which the Minister for Industry and Commerce, Mr. Lemass, said he would like to see how it worked this way before coming to a final conclusion as to whether it might be desirable to transfer it to the mother, as being the person normally responsible for looking after the children.

Mr. Corry

I welcome the Bill. It showed an enormous amount of courage on the part of the Minister and the Cabinet to bring in a Bill of this kind in the knowledge of the financial position of the country. It took a great deal of courage when we are facing the mess in which we were left, when one would think of paring every corner and saving in every direction. I am wondering whether Deputy Sweetman will have to wait until the Legal Adoption Bill goes through before he will get the half-crown for Deputy Dillon and the four shillings for Deputy Flanagan.

Mr. Sweetman

What will you draw for Deputy Flynn?

Mr. McGrath

They love children.

Mr. Corry

Deputy Sweetman will have to wait until Deputy McGrath's idea of a Legal Adoption Bill becomes effective before he will collect the money.

I do not wish to delay the House. I congratulate the Minister on his courage in bringing in a Bill of that type in such a period as we are passing through in the matter of finance.

Dr. Ryan

Deputy Corish and, I think, other Deputies were rather critical of the system of monthly payments rather than weekly payments. I would earnestly appeal to Deputies not to make it as it were a Party question. It is well worth a trial. It is quite possible and indeed probable that many families will be enabled to make some saving by the introduction of the monthly payment system. As far as the improvident families are concerned, I do not see that they will be any worse off. I admit that they will get the first monthly cheque in advance and, if they spend it rather improvidently, by the time the next cheque comes along, they will owe it to somebody and will have to pay some debt with it. On the whole, seeing that we are not going to do any injury to the improvident and may encourage some people to be provident, we should give it every chance. It can, of course, be changed again. As some Deputy said, on account of the administration being made easier, it will probably be to the benefit of those who are drawing the allowances because it will mean that everything will be done more promptly and more efficiently. I do not make any great plea on the ground of the saving in administration. There will be some saving, I suppose, but it will not be very much.

Deputy Corish, and I think also Deputy Hickey, referred to the child who continues at school beyond the age of 16. There was a provision of that kind up to now for orphans, especially for the children of widows. Up to the moment, a widow could draw benefit for herself and also for her children up to 14, or, if they were going to school, up to 16. We have changed that as far as the children of widows are concerned. We have made it 16 in all cases. One of the big reasons why we changed it was that it was very difficult to administer, and we felt that there was a fair amount of deception in it, that certain widows were deceiving us. We were in a position, of course, to check up on it completely, but I think it is wrong that there should be any system where deception is practised, because it is bad for the person who practises it as well as everyone else. We changed it in that case and, of course, we had to make it 16 all round, because we would be putting some people in a worse position than they had been. I do not want, therefore, to lapse into that practice again in the case of children's allowances. I do not want to bring any amendment here that will enable me to pay children's allowances to children over 16 when they continue to go to school. It is better to leave it as it is, at the age of 16.

As regards Deputy Rooney's remarks about the child who eats a loaf of bread before his breakfast, it is only natural to expect that he will eat another loaf before the day is over and he will be much better off because, at present, he has to pay a very high price for the second loaf; he has to buy white bread off the ration. Under the new system, he will be able to get two loaves of bread at the ordinary price and he will be better off.

This whole matter of children's allowances is a very costly business. We would all like to do more. Some of the Deputies who spoke said they would like to see the thing improved and expressed the hope that they would see the matter improved in time. Deputy Briscoe said he would like to see an allowance of 5/- for all children. That would be a very costly business. As a matter of fact, when this Bill is passed, children's allowances will cost £5,000,000 a year. That is a very big item in a country like this. It amounts to 5 per cent. of our expenditure.

Some question arose about a family of ten children. I think it was Deputy Sweetman who asked if there were such families in receipt of benefit.

Mr. Sweetman

I referred to families of 14.

Dr. Ryan

I thought it was ten. There are 692 families where ten children are in benefit; only one family where 14 are in benefit but there is one. I do not know how long that may last because the eldest will naturally pass out of benefit and I have no doubt whether he will be replaced. There are eight families where there are 13 in benefit. It gets less, of course, as the numbers go up. Deputy Sweetman asked, also, if we left out the second child and spent the same amount of money, what would be the allowance that we could give to each other child. I could make only a rough estimate so I would ask the Deputy not to hold me to it. Roughly, if we left out the second child, we could have given 5/6 to each other child—a little more—5/8 or 5/9.

We could have given about 5/6 to each child from the third child upwards. If we had left the third child as he was with 2/6, going on beyond the third child, I think it would amount to something about 7/-. I made a rough calculation as the Deputy was speaking which could not be absolutely correct, but roughly that is how the thing goes. In this case, where children's allowances were admittedly related to the increase in the price of food, it was thought better to bring in the second child because that means, in fact, that no family will suffer, as a result of the increased price of foods through the withdrawal of subsidies except a family consisting of three— that is to say, of a father, mother and one child. If anybody speaks of the increased cost of living as a result of the withdrawal of the food subsidies, the biggest burden that he can claim it will impose on a family will, therefore, be 4/6 a week.

With regard to income-tax, this Bill does not in any way amend the Finance Act, so that whatever increased allowances are paid will not be subject to income-tax. As Deputies are aware, there was a provision in one Finance Act, which came after the children's allowances became payable, under which a parent does not benefit to the same extent from other allowances when he is drawing the children's allowance. Whatever extra amount he is going to draw now will not make any difference if or until some Minister for Finance tries to alter the Finance Act again.

Mr. Sweetman

Does the fact that this Bill has to be construed with the principal Act bring the allowances paid under this Bill within the exemptions under the 1944 Finance Act?

Dr. Ryan

I do not see how it would alter the Finance Act.

Mr. Sweetman

The position is that unless the allowance was exempted, it would be taxable as income.

Dr. Ryan

It will not be taxed as income. Another question raised by Deputy Sweetman was whether we would reconsider the matter which arose on the introduction of the principal Act as to whether the allowance should be paid to the father or the mother. I do not think the present system has worked badly. In fact about half of the fathers have voluntarily nominated the mothers as the recipients and the mothers receive the allowance. In the other cases, the fathers receive the allowance, but we have got no complaints or at least there have been no general complaints in regard to the system of payment. Deputy Hickey stated an economic fact, that a pound does not matter, that what does matter is what we can get for a pound. That is an economic fact but the person who has no pound has no interest in the economic fact.

Some Deputy made an observation which led me to make a note that a nutritional survey was carried out in this country in 1947. The results of that survey have been published for the last three or four years. I am sure Deputies have read the reports and I do think they should take a certain pride in the very satisfactory condition of nutrition they disclose in this country. We compare very favourably with most countries in the world. I think it was thought at the time that there were only three or four countries that should claim a higher level of nutrition than this country. That was certainly a great tribute to such a small country as this. There was, however, one class where nutrition was not up to the average standard. That was in the case of the large family.

The only way to deal with that is to increase children's allowances, so that although this particular increase is related to the increase in the price of food owing to the withdrawal of food subsidies, we hope, like Deputies Cowan and Cogan, this being a permanent measure, for an improvement in the price of food and in that way there will be a definite gain to the family. If not, of course, whenever the country can afford to do better in regard to children's allowances, I hope there will be further improvement. I do not think any other point was raised that would call for any comment from me.

Dáil Éireann debate - Wednesday, 21 May 1952