Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 5 Jun 1957

Vol. 48 No. 3

Public Business. - Social Welfare (Children's Allowances) Bill, 1957—Second and Subsequent Stages.

Question proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

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

As Senators are aware, there is a separate code of legislation in respect of children's allowances. That explains the necessity for this Bill which, by means of increases in those allowances, provides compensation to families of two or more children for the increase in prices which has resulted from the withdrawal of the food subsidies.

Under the provisions of this Bill, an additional 4/6 per month with effect from the 1st June will be payable for the second and each subsequent child eligible for children's allowances. For May, an additional payment of 2/6 for each such child will be made as an offset to the rise in prices in that month. The first payment of the increased allowances will be made on 2nd July on which date the arrears in respect of May and June will also be paid.

These increases in children's allowances will benefit 225,000 families and will be paid in respect of 586,000 children. Total expenditure on children's allowances as from 2nd July next will be just under £7,000,000 per annum which is a large sum in relation to our total expenditure.

Mr. Murphy

I do not want to cover all the ground we covered on the last Bill because, in effect, the purpose of this Bill is similar, namely, an attempt to give some compensation for the withdrawal of the food subsidies. I do notice that the compensation which is being made here is fractionally less stingy than that in the previous Bill. Here we have an improvement of 4/6 a month, which amounts in my calculation to £2 14s. per annum, and, under the last Bill, we had 1/- a week, which amounts to £2 12s. It may be said that these small amounts are a bit ridiculous, but they are not ridiculous to the people in receipt of them. However, I welcome the fact that, as the food subsidies have been withdrawn in this instance, the compensation has been made to those in receipt of children's allowances.

Dr. Sheehy Skeffington

In replying to a point I made about children's allowances on the previous Bill, Senator Kissane made the point that the main purpose of children's allowances was to encourage large families. I do not think that the £1,500,000 asked for under this Bill as opposed to the £600,000 asked for under the previous Bill has anything to do with the desire to increase the size of families. The Parliamentary Secretary has told us explicitly that the purpose of this Bill is to give compensation for the rise in the price of bread and butter to large families, and I should like to hear his view on my submission that we are voting from a given sum too much for this Bill and too little for the previous Bill—that we are overcompensating the children of all families, rich and poor alike, who come under this Bill.

The number of children, I think, was calculated in the Dáil as over 500,000, and we are overcompensating these children, relatively speaking, and undercompensating the beneficiaries under the previous Bill. To put it in the form of a question, would it not have been better to grant £1,500,000 to the old age pensioners, the unemployed and their dependents, and the blind pensioners, and £500,000 or £600,000, to the children of all classes, in these circumstances, since the object of this Bill is specifically to compensate children, rich and poor, for the rise in the price of bread and butter?

Éamon Ó Ciosáin

I am afraid that Senator Sheehy Skeffington has misquoted me slightly. I did not say that the main purpose of children's allowances was to encourage large families, but that one of the purposes of the original Children's Allowances Act was to encourage large families. I think that is fairly accurate.

Mr. Kennedy

It is a very debatable point that Senator Sheehy Skeffington has put before me and I would want to sleep for a few nights on it and give my views then. What strikes me immediately is this: I would say that the consumption of food is greater where there are a lot of children than where there are old people, and the demand for allowances, and for liberality under the social services, would be greater. Then, there is the second point which dovetails into that, that there is no discrimination between the children of the rich and the poor. It is an avenue I do not like to travel up at the moment. I will give it consideration, and if I am honoured to come before the Seanad again in connection with social welfare, I might have an answer for Senator Sheehy Skeffington. I do not want to be impolite to him. He put me a six marker there and I am not able to answer it.

Mr. Murphy

Senator Sheehy Skeffington has not said himself whether he wants a means test.

Question put and agreed to.

Agreed to take remaining stages to-day.

Bill passed through Committee; reported without amendment; received for final consideration; and ordered to be returned to the Dáil.