Seán Sherlock (Cork East, Labour)

I would like to quote from an academic analysis that suggests an additional unit of income earned or gained by a female is more likely to be spent on child care, or children's clothing, than an additional unit of income earned or gained by a male. The report in question, The Kids are Alright: Who Benefits from Child Benefit? An Analysis Using Irish Data, which was published by Dr. David Madden in March 2000, states:

Child Benefit in Ireland is unlike most other transfer payments in two respects. First, it is a universal non means-tested payment made to all families with children. The second unusual feature regarding child benefit is that it is normally paid to the child's mother or step-mother. If the child does not live with the mother or step-mother, then it may be paid to the child's father or step-father.

The report continues:

The combination of these two factors implies that analysis of child benefit and the pattern of expenditure from child benefit can throw light on a number of features of interest. The first of these concerns the issue of within household allocation. Much economic analysis treats the family as the unit of measurement and little attention is paid to the allocation of resources within the household. Since child benefit is paid to the mother then analysis of how it is spent may shed light on the degree to which ownership of a source of income may affect its use.

Dr. Madden's analysis refers to a report published in the UK, which shows how:

A change in the payment of child benefit from fathers to mothers led to increased expenditure on children's clothing. In a similar vein [another report showed] the different influence of male and female incomes on patterns of household expenditures. They find that an extra unit of female income is more likely to be spent on childcare or children's clothing than is an extra unit of male income.

The Madden report continues:

If the propensity to consume "child-intensive" goods such as food or children's clothing is higher from child benefit than other sources of income then it seems reasonable to infer that children do gain disproportionately from child benefit. The universality of child benefit lends itself in particular to the analysis of this issue since it implies that apart from the obvious difference of having children, families receiving child benefit should be reasonably representative of the population at large.

Dr. Madden also refers to the 1994 Rottman report, which examined some of these issues. Although it relates to an original survey from 1987, I suggest that the same principles continue to apply. The report states:

He uses a sample of 625 households who were part of a follow-up to a major survey carried out by the Economic and Social Research Institute in 1987. He finds that the source of income appears to be important from the point of view of sharing of resources. Households with income derived mainly from social welfare sources share about 33% of their income compared with an average of about 63% for other households. With regard to child benefit households appear to divide fairly evenly between those who use it for general household spending and those who use it for child specific goods. That breakdown is sensitive however to who controls the spending of child benefit. Where it is jointly controlled there is a significantly lower proportion spent on children's goods as opposed to the case where the wife [I assume he means "partner"] controls child benefit. He also finds that when asked how a windfall increase of £20 per month in household income would be spent, 18% of wives listed children's clothing as a priority as opposed to 10% of husbands.

A total of 18% of wives listed children's clothing as a priority, as opposed to 10% of husbands. The fundamental point here is that this a payment to women for their children. It is used in households for children, is protected by women for their children and goes directly towards the welfare of children.

Although this study may be dated, I believe it stands the test of time. If the payment goes to women for the welfare of children, then there is a logical case for it to be preserved, as has already been elucidated by my colleagues. That is our central point.

See this speech in context