asked the Minister for Social Welfare whether he accepts the need for a broad ranging review of all family and child support policies including child benefit.
5.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Child Benefit.
4.
asked the Minister for Social Welfare the way in which the Government intend to target child benefit payments to those in greater need; his views on the abolition of the payment to families whose income exceeds £30,000; the savings which would be made if this were the case; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
17.
asked the Minister for Social Welfare if he will make a statement on the proposed changes announced by the Taoiseach in relation to the payment of child benefit.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 4, 5 and 17 together.
The proposal to apply an income limit for entitlement to child benefit was put forward by the Minister for Finance in his budget statement for discussion and examination. It reflects the concern that has been expressed in regard to the payment of this benefit to very high income families and the importance of targeting resources within the child benefit scheme.
As the Taoiseach stated in Dáil Éireann (Official Report, 1 February 1989, columns 898-9) it was never the Government's intention that the income limits contemplated would affect low or middle income families. The kind of income limit envisaged was not less than £30,000 per annum. Such a limit could achieve estimated savings of £5 million in a full year. Such savings would be used to improve the child benefits for those on lower incomes.
One of the drawbacks at present is that because of the complete lack of selectivity, Governments are inclined to give increases to better targeted schemes and give those schemes priority over child benefit. If the child benefit scheme is to be improved on a regular basis for those who really need it, there should be some element of selectivity. One way would be to give any new increases up to a certain level of incomes only.
The Government are firmly committed to improving the position of low income families. The measures announced in the budget constitute a co-ordinated set of measures which taken together represent a major initiative in this area and build on the substantial progress made last year.
First, special measures have been taken for families at work on low pay, which will be of particular benefit to those with children.
We know all about that.
These measures involve an increase from £5,000 to £6,000 in the tax exemption limit for married couples together with a new special exemption of £200 in respect of each child. For a married couple with five children on £7,000 a year the net gain will be £13 a week.
This is outrageous.
A similar family will continue to benefit at a reducing rate up to an income of £9,000. In all, 136,000 children in some 65,000 families will benefit from this novel and practical arrangement.
Secondly, in relation to social welfare payments, this year's budget contains very significant increases in respect of children. Child dependant allowances rates generally are being increased by 3 per cent.
What about the child benefit allowance?
In addition, a minimum rate of £10 per week is being introduced for all dependent children. The payments in respect of children for a three child family on short-term unemployment assistance will be increased by £3 per week, and by £2.20 per week for a person on long term unemployment assistance. The rate for the third and subsequent children on these payments is being increased by 25 per cent for short-term and by 19 per cent for long-term recipients.
In addition to these increases, the definition of child dependant——
This is total abuse.
Please, Deputy O'Keeffe.
——has been extended for long-term recipients including those in receipt of unemployment assistance to the age of 19 years for children in full time education, as a first step towards raising the age to 21 years.
This is out of order. The Minister is filibustering.
Child benefit is being improved by paying the higher rate of £21.75 in respect of the fifth child from next October, which will mean an increase of £6.70 per month or £80.40 per year to families of five or more children.
He will not address the question.
Improvements are also being made in the family income supplement, which is paid to families of low income workers. These improvements will be directed mainly at larger families.
I wish to call a quorum. The Minister is filibustering.
I think that the Deputy will agree that it is customary to listen to the Minister's initial reply without interruption.
He is filibustering to avoid answering the question. It is the same with all the Priority Questions.