Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 13 Nov 1986

Vol. 369 No. 10

Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Family Income Support.

25.

asked the Minister for Social Welfare the changes, if any, proposed to improve family income support which is at present grossly inadequate; and the plans, if any there are to increase benefits under the child benefit scheme.

As announced in the National Plan Building on Reality 1985-1987, the Government are committed to the rationalisation of the system of child support in order to ensure that available resources are targeted to those most in need.

As a first step a non-taxable child benefit scheme providing monthly payments of £15.05 for each of the first five children and £21.75 for each subsequent child was introduced in April 1986. This scheme was financed in part by the abolition of child tax allowances, which were of greatest benefit to those with highest incomes. These measures have brought about real improvements in the level of payments to low income families including families dependent on social welfare payments.

Further developments will be considered in the context of the review which is taking place of the report of the Commission on Social Welfare.

What are the Minister's intentions in real terms, of improving child benefit support because, in the infamous document Building on Reality 1985-87, it was suggested that, when the child benefit scheme was introduced to replace children's allowances, a minimum of £30 per month, per child, would be paid? No doubt the Minister well knows that the record of this Government has been quite atrocious in relation to financial support for children.

That is not a question.

I am asking the Minister——

The Deputy is making a speech.

On a point of order, can I suggest to you, a Cheann Comhairle, with due respect, that the Minister has made long statements lauding——

I have no control over how questions are answered.

——the magnificent performance of her Department in the past few years. Nobody believes that but herself.

As my predecessors have been saying for 60 years, the Chair has no control over how questions are answered.

That is a pity.

It is unfortunate because the present Minister hides behind everything. May I ask the Minister if she realises that this Government gave no increase in children's allowances in 1983, that in 1984 they gave a tiny increase of 7½ per cent from August when half the year was gone, that in 1985 they gave no increases and that this year they introduced this child benefit scheme which gave an increase of £12.03 to £15.03 per child per month, an increase of £3 per month or 75p per week or for a family on the lower tax bracket of 35 per cent, a gain of something in the region of 8p a week? Does the Minister not accept that in the present day and age increases such as that are quite ridiculous and are certainly not sufficient to maintain essentials for families, particularly those with a large number of children?

The latter part of what the Deputy said is a question and I will allow it.

I do not agree with what the Deputy says because the Government, as has been pointed out in several other answers, have given considerable increases in real terms to social welfare beneficiaries, particularly those at the lowest level of social welfare. The child benefit payment has specifically benefited those families at the lowest end of the social scale more than any other families. I think that is the right way to proceed. The annual cost of child benefit in 1986 is £206 million. That is an enormous amount of money added to the rest of the social welfare bill. We are targeting this money as far as possible towards families on the lowest end of the social welfare scale.

Top
Share