asked the Minister for Social Welfare whether he is aware that a widow receiving a non-contributory widow's pension loses the allowance for her child when the child reaches 16 years of age, even though the child is still attending school; and whether he will consider extending benefit in respect of a child for the period of the child's free education in a post-primary school.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Widows' Non-Contributory Pension Scheme.
59.
The introduction of legislation to extend the scope of the widows' non-contributory pension scheme on the lines suggested by the Deputy is not at present contemplated.
Will the Minister not agree that there is a highly anomalous situation here if for a widow who wants to send her child to secondary school, which now is allegedly available to all, it becomes economically impossible for her to do so as a result of the exceptional decision of the Minister for Social Welfare that a school-attending child is not counted as the liability of the parent if she is a widow with a non-contributory pension, whereas such a child is considered to be the liability of a parent who is paying income tax or sur-tax?
I think a better case has been made for this before free education was made available to the child. This question of extending the children's allowance in all cases has been suggested time and again. It is difficult to administer as the Deputy knows. There was a time prior to 1953 when the widow's dependants were no longer regarded for pension purposes as dependants when they reached 14 unless they continued at school until they were 16. That was abolished primarily because it made for a lot of administrative anomalies.
Does the Minister appreciate—I cannot imagine that he does—what I have to say to a widow with a non-contributory penson—that I am entitled to an allowance on my income tax for my dependent child over the age of 16 so long as the child is at school, but she is to have her allowance for the child withdrawn at the age of 16 although she is trying to send the child to secondary school which the Oireachtas has decided is to be universally available to all children? Here is so grotesque an anomaly that it cannot be allowed continue.
The age limit is 16; it was 14 except in the case of a child going to school. It was made 16 after 1953 when it was extended to all children up to 16. You could still argue that it should be extended for children going to university.
If we want to provide free education that is the thing to do.
Sixteen is a reasonable age. There are a lot of things I would like to do and which I hope to do with regard to children's allowances generally but I do not think that this is one of the most deserving matters.
Surely it is an anomaly to have a sur-tax payer given an allowance in this case?
Question No. 60.