Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

While I can understand the motivation behind the proposal tabled by Deputy Pringle, it is a blunt instrument and is not the proper place to address the issue to which he refers. In addition, the amendment's wording contains a contradiction because child benefit is a social assistance payment in any event and consequently, this provision would contradict itself in that it provides that one cannot be paid this increase unless one is in receipt of child benefit, which everybody is getting in the first place. I have argued it would be more useful that with any recovery, those who are poorest and most vulnerable in society are the people who should be targeted with any available increase. Members have debated, both in this Chamber and on Committee Stage, on social transfers and the benefits therefrom, that is, the money the Department pays out to those who qualify for whatever the payment might be. Although the restrictions mentioned earlier prevent Deputy Pringle and me or anybody else from raising such a measure, it would be more useful to suggest an increase in the dependent child allowance. Were the Government to do that, those who are in receipt of another social welfare payment, be it a jobseeker's allowance, carer's benefit and so on, would get the additional €5. That would be a more targeted approach although I acknowledge there are problems with it, just as there are problems with this proposal.

One of the problems with the social assistance payment is that it is often the man in the household who receives the primary social welfare payment, while the wife or partner who is deemed to be a qualified adult receives the child benefit payment of €135 or €140 per month. If, as suggested by Deputy Thomas Pringle, we were to provide that the additional payment of €5 in child benefit be made only to mothers in receipt of social assistance or social insurance payments, mothers who are qualified adults but not in receipt of these payments would not benefit from the increase. Members will be aware that it is always the mother who applies in her own right for child benefit. There are complications around what is proposed, although I understand Deputy Thomas Pringle is trying to ensure the money is targeted at those who are most vulnerable in our society, particularly lone parents and children. This legislation does not address the retrograde changes made by the Government for young unemployed people and, in particular, lone parents who are the most disadvantaged in our society by every stretch of the imagination, as highlighted in each report compiled on those at risk of poverty and those who are living in poverty, in which lone parents score highest.

It is a pity the amendment was not tabled on Committee Stage, at which time we could have had a proper debate on what Deputy Thomas Pringle has in mind, following which we might have been able to put together an amendment to better address the Deputyis positive intentions. Acceptance of the amendment, as drafted, would lead to more problems than benefits. In particular, it would end the universality of the child benefit payment. I have always agreed with its universality because if not applied in that way, the scheme could be undermined. I have always argued that the issue of people having too much money would best be addressed by way of direct taxation. If that meant the introduction of an additional tax rate, so be it. That is the way to address the issue of extra income, taxes on which would provide the Government with additional moneys to enhance the social assistance and social benefit payments which are dealt with slightly in the Bill by way of a reference to the schedule of payments, including the qualified child payment of €29.80. While other payments increase or decrease, depending on a person's circumstances, the qualified child payment under each of the schemes with which we are dealing remain the same. If the payment were to be increased by €5, it would make a substantial difference to those who are totally dependant on social welfare payments.

See this speech in context