I support the proposal of my colleague Deputy Jim O'Keeffe. It has been well established by various reports on payment of social welfare benefit to families that the best way of getting money to children is through child benefit. Increases in child benefit are reflected directly in increased spending on children. It is also well known that a sizeable proportion of children live below the poverty line. When one considers that the best way of getting money to those children is through child benefit it makes great sense to concentrate resources on increasing child benefit.
It is regrettable that this Government has not increased child benefit substantially. The previous Government granted a substantial increase and the Minister, Deputy Ahern, now has a golden opportunity to put right the neglect of the past few years. It is remarkable that almost 60 per cent of the recipients of child benefit, generally mothers, have no other personal income. This fact bears out the findings that money given in child benefit goes directly to the substantive carers of children in the home.
We have spent much time recently discussing tax relief for child care. This proposal would go some of the way towards easing the difficulties in relation to child care. This proposed increase in child benefit from approximately £8 per week to £20 per week for children aged five and under would cost £150 million per year. There are approximately 50,000 children in each year group so there are 250,000 children under five. An increase of £12 per week or £600 per year for each child amounts to £150 million. The budget surplus this year will be in excess of £2 billion. When discussing earlier amendments the Minister said he could not find the additional money required. The Minister must accept that some of the budget surplus must go to children. What bet ter way to do this than by increasing child benefit?
I am old enough to remember the time when child benefit was referred to as the half crowns. My mother used place great store on being able to draw the half crowns because she was a housewife and she regarded that money as her own few pounds. I was one of ten children and the half crowns were quite substantial. My mother regarded that money as income which she could use as she wished. Knowing that so much child benefit goes directly to children, I ask the Minister to give this amendment his special consideration.