Joanna Tuffy (Dublin Mid West, Labour)

Deputy Burton referred to the history of child benefit and I wish to provide some more details on that. In 1943, it was a progressive move by the then Minister, Seán Lemass, to introduce a Bill to provide for a universal allowance for the third and subsequent children in a family. The Labour Party supported the introduction of child benefit at that time. Almost 70 years later, the legislation is still in place and we have built on it. For all the cynicism about politics, that was a time when worthwhile measures were taken in this House. The allowance was introduced to provide support for large families with three or more children. Lemass's argument for bringing in the payment was that wages did not relate to family size because a person might earn the same amount irrespective of whether he had a family. In addition, there was nothing in the tax system that recognised the extra cost of raising children. Lemass argued for a universal payment that would not be means tested. That was because the Government of the day wanted to ensure there was not the slightest suggestion of charity being associated with the allowance. In the 1943 debate, Lemass said a means test would involve an inquisition into the affairs of families, which is often resented and as a general rule is undesirable. He was frank in his speech to the Dáil, stating that the consequences of introducing a children's allowance would be the need for taxpayers, irrespective of whether they had children, to pay more.

Lemass also referred to models in other countries, including the 1942 Beveridge report which proposed Britain's welfare state, including the national health service. Such progressive moves were also being made in other countries, including those undertaken by US President Franklin D. Roosevelt to cope with the Depression. Those were hard times, including the Second World War and food rationing, which also affected this country. At the time, there were progressive proposals on how societies should work together to deal with the important issues of the day. One such step taken by the Dáil at that time was the introduction of a payment which was about valuing children.

The reasons for having child benefit today, which is not means tested, are the same as obtained in 1943. We value children and believe they have unique rights. Children are not allowed to work, as we believe they should be protected during their upbringing and should also have the opportunity to avail of education. Children have no income, so the allowance was a payment for children then, as now. Parents still receive the same wages irrespective of whether they have children, and this is the State's way of providing an income for children. If we get rid of universal child benefit we will be taking away money from the children we are supposed to protect.

Other countries have adopted the principle of universal child payments similar to ours. In 2006, a report on the cost of raising children in North European countries noted that seven such states had universal, non means-tested child benefit payments to parents. They were Denmark, Sweden, the Netherlands, Finland, Norway, Germany and the United Kingdom. It is notable that the Scandinavian countries have much more universality in their social provisions than we have in Ireland. We have some such universality, but it is limited. Most of our social welfare payments are means tested. The economies of countries that are doing best in terms of equality are better than ours. They have more infrastructure and better provision of public services. They have more universality and equality than Ireland. Rather than rolling back on the promise we made in introducing the principle of universality concerning child benefit, we should try to introduce more universality, for example, in the health system.

We should preserve the universality we already have. These hard times are not a reason to roll back on progress concerning universality. The countries that introduced such universal provisions did so just after the Second World War in financially straitened times. In Britain, where so much housing had been destroyed, they introduced a national health service based on the principle of universality. That is the direction in which we should be heading, rather than using our economic recession as an excuse to roll back on the progress we made in 1943.

A generous philosophy underpins the principle of universality. Seán Lemass demonstrated a generous political impulse in deciding to introduce a universal children's allowance. The measure is about social solidarity and working together on what we value as a society. We have universality in education but not in health, which is a dysfunctional system. Our education system is a good one, which provides for all our children. It is not perfect but it has helped society to make great progress. We also had universality for medical cards, but the Government demonstrated a begrudging attitude in going after the over-70s' medical cards, particularly given the small savings that were made as a result. Similarly, when people talk about withdrawing universal child benefit, it displays an ungenerous political motivation.

The 1916 Proclamation referred to cherishing all the children of the nation equally. The signatories of the Proclamation valued children's unique rights. Their concept was that we should cherish and protect them. In many respects Ireland does not have a good record on children's rights. That is all coming out now, with the Ryan report and the report by the Commission of Investigation into the Catholic Archdiocese of Dublin as well as the fact that we have stalled in doing anything about children's rights in the Constitution. Many other countries provide for children's rights in their constitution, and it is not a big deal. We should get on with it and provide children's rights.

To vindicate these rights, we need to work together to protect, value and cherish our children. Rather than begrudging children this payment, we should build on it, maintain universality and do more to vindicate their rights in our society.

See this speech in context