Paul McGrath (Westmeath, Fine Gael)

They probably feel I will say the same again tonight. Some of what I say will be the same, because they have not changed. Let me begin by giving out the plaudits and saying that much of what has been achieved in the social welfare budget is very good. The Minister has managed to provide reasonable increases for many of the vulnerable in society, the elderly, carers etc. These have got reasonable increases, no more than they deserve.

This social welfare budget is not a grandiose handing out of benefits but gives people that to which they are entitled. In many instances it just repays the confidence they showed in the system through the contributions they made over the years. Therefore, they are entitled to what they are getting.

My role is to point out the shortfalls in this social welfare budget. There is a glaring shortfall in the area of child dependant allowance. This allowance is targeted at vulnerable people and provides for families in receipt of social welfare payments. I see a smile appearing on the officials' faces because they know what I am about to say. The child dependant allowance is very targeted in that anybody in receipt of it has already qualified through making contributions or by passing a means test. The allowance has not changed since the early 1990s. Not only has it not changed, it presents a great anomaly because there are three different payments. The response the Minister's officials will pass to him is that this is not too bad because there used to be 36 levels of payment. I am not interested in that and do not want it said by the Minister for the 93rd time. It is not right and not in accord with the policy of treating children equally that there are three different payments.

There is not even consistency regarding the composition of the payments or what they relate to. If one is in receipt of unemployment benefit, one has paid into an insurance scheme called the social insurance fund by way of one's weekly PRSI contributions at work. When one needs to get a payment from this fund, one applies for what is called unemployment benefit. If one is on unemployment benefit and has a child dependant, one gets €16.80 for the child per week. If one is on disability benefit or in receipt of the old age non-contributory pension, which is not insurance-based, one gets €16.80 per child per week. Furthermore, if one receives a pension for the blind, a widow's or widower's non-contributory pension or the carer's allowance, one gets €16.80 per child per week. Some of these payments are based on paying into the social insurance fund and others are not, yet all entitle one to €16.80 per child per week.

If, however, one receives an old age contributory pension, which comes out of the social insurance fund, one gets €19.30 per child per week. If one receives invalidity pension or the one-parent family payment, one gets €19.30 per child per week. There is no consistency as some of these payments are made from the social insurance fund while others are not. A widow or widower on a contributory pension receives €21.60 per child per week. The difference between the top and bottom rates amounts to €250 per annum and this simply cannot be justified.

One of the major criticisms of the budget and the social welfare package was by the Society of St. Vincent de Paul, as the Minister knows. It criticised him for doing nothing in respect of the child dependant allowance. It asked him to increase it to €30 per week because it is a targeted payment. Not only was it not increased, the anomaly I have mentioned was not removed from the system. This is a mistake and missed opportunity and the Minister should address it soon.

It is not right that children who are equal can be treated differently. There is a great deal of money in the social insurance fund and the last time I noted its size, it was approaching €2 billion. The Minister could therefore take the major step of equalising the payments. I know what will happen, however. Most children are on the lower payment and the Minister cannot decrease the payment to anybody, thus implying that he would have to pay them all at the top rate. This would cost a great deal of money and this is probably why the payments have not been equalised. However, that is not an excuse for tolerating inequality in society, including inequality in the way in which we treat our children.

The script for my contribution on child benefit could probably be written by others as they have heard these points before. The Minister has provided for an increase of slightly in excess of €8 in this benefit. Just to keep pace with the promises made in the budget statement of 2003, the increase would need to amount to €40 per month; this has not happened. I always ask why one's third, fourth and fifth children receive a higher rate of payment than the first and second children. How can one justify this? What is special about child three that he should receive a higher rate of payment than child two? If one has twins, there is — I almost used an unparliamentary word — a non-standard payment that bridges the gap between the two payments such that a kind of hybrid payment is made. Why should there be any difference in treatment?

This problem stems from the old days when child benefit was first introduced. The Minister and I are old enough to remember what my mother used to call the half crowns. Deputy Penrose once spoke about it.

See this speech in context