Vol. 528 No. 2
23 Ms Fitzgerald asked the Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs if he proposes to undertake any research on the cost of child rearing and child care, his views on the percentage of this cost that should be met through child benefit; the extent of child poverty; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [30014/00]
The basic cost of maintaining a child as estimated in the Combat Poverty Agency funded report in 1994 would come to about £36.50 per week in today's money. This estimate does not take account of the cost of paid child care for parents who go out to work.
In this year's budget, I provided for increases in child benefit of £25 per month for the first two children and £30 for the third and subsequent children. This is only the first of three years of increases which will see Government investment in the payment rise by £1 billion by 2003, which is almost a threefold increase.
This means that by 2002, we will have exceeded the PPF commitment to move towards child benefit rates of £100 per month for third and subsequent children. The Programme for Prosperity and Fairness contains the commitment that, recognising the progress made in the negotiations in relation to child care, following a completion process with the social partners, the Government would adopt a strategy to support parents in meeting their child care needs. A cross-cutting approach to this issue has been adopted in this year's budget which takes account of the diverse viewpoints of the social partners.
First, the substantial improvements in child benefit will assist parents who use paid child care, while simultaneously supporting those who choose to work within the home and care for their children in that way. Second, there is provision for an exemption from benefit-in-kind tax for employer-provided child care which should assist on the supply side. In addition, the budget provides for a Civil Service child care initiative involving the provision of fifteen civil service crèches over the next two years. Third, the significant improvements in after-tax income will also assist families with child care costs. Finally, spending is being front-loaded through allocation of £104 million in the Estimates for next year.
On child poverty, the most recent independent survey carried out by the Economic and Social Research Institute shows that the level of consistent poverty among children has dropped to 12%, a fall of almost 30%, in the 12 month period from 1997 to 1998.
Additional Information:This Government is committed to maintaining this downward trend. To this end, child poverty has been identified as a central issue for consideration in the review of the National Anti-Poverty Strategy provided for in the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness.
Why must parents wait six months until June? Why are they in deficit, as it were, for six months for this payment? Will the Minister introduce child benefit or what are his expectations for 2002? What has been built in regarding finances? When will increases be paid? Will it be January, April or June for 2002?
Does the Minister believe it is time the Government set down a basic minimum income payment for children? We have not ever done so here, which is out of line with the UN convention on children and it is also out of line with the strategy on children. We have not said what a basic minimum income payment for children should be. As the Minister said, the Combat Poverty Agency estimates the cost of rearing a child at £36.50 per week, though many parents would feel it is a great deal more. Should we examine this and do some research into it? This figure does not take account of child care payments, which are an extra cost for many parents. For those on minimum incomes the payment does not meet that basic standard, which takes food and clothing into account but none of the extras. Has the time come for us to decide as a country what a minimum income payment for children should be, in the same way as we have done for adults in the social welfare code? This would put us in line with other countries.
Does the Minister have any plans to pay child benefit on a weekly basis for families who budget on a weekly basis? That is how it is done in England. As we are now moving towards having child benefit as the main support for families, is the Minister considering this?
Regarding payment dates, it is true to say the Government has made a decision to bring back the payment dates of child benefit. In this budget we have indicated that payments in the coming year will be made in June as opposed to September. That is as much as we can physically do in the first year given the time constraints. It is a huge job to bring back payment dates from the Department's point of view in relation to the delivery of payments. We have indicated that we will endeavour to progressively bring the payment date as near as we can to the date of the general increases – something which I know the Deputy welcomes – which will be made from 5 April 2001 and 1 January 2002. We have not looked at the issue of whether they would be paid on a weekly basis. All of this is tied into the delivery of social welfare payments and the further we move to the greater use of technology such as electronic fund transfer and ways in which perhaps other changes—
That concludes Question No. 23. Now we must proceed to Question No. 24.
I have the other issue of the minimum income.
We must proceed to Question No. 24.
Can we just deal with that matter very briefly? This is very unsatisfactory.
The Chair cannot do anything about it. The Chair is obliged to carry out – we have gone into seven minutes. We are well over the time limit.
The Minister is glad to get out of it. It is very embarrassing.
Embarrassing?
Yes.
What is embarrassing?
The Government is way behind.
No other Deputy can intervene. These are Priority Questions. Deputy McGrath is not entitled to intervene in Priority Questions. We are now dealing with Question No. 24.
A sum of £25 and £30 child benefit as opposed to £1 only three years ago under the Government of which the Deputy was a member.
A figure of 29 against 36.
One in five.
That is still not enough. The Minister is expecting it to do everything.
One in five.
This is most disorderly. There are clear rules laid down for Priority Questions which I expect Members to honour.
I will refrain.
