Mr. Niall Egan:

I will do my best and if I miss anything, perhaps the clerk will bring it to my attention and I will follow up with Deputies and Senators. The key point to make here is the rationale for the reform. In 1997, we introduced the one-parent family payment and it has been in place since then. At that stage and as was the case until recently, an individual lone parent could receive the one-parent family payment until the youngest child was 18 or 22 years of age if that child was in full-time education. What has happened and what we have noticed since 1997 ties in with some earlier comments that lone parents have more than double the rate of consistent poverty when compared with the population as a whole. When there is no conditionality on the one-parent family payment and when it ceases, all of a sudden one has people, typically women, coming in and looking for a jobseeker's payment only to be told they must be available for and genuinely seeking full-time work. In some cases - I acknowledge completely not in all cases - these people have had no experience of work and nor do they have education or training attainment. This transition essentially is what leads to these people to struggle and more often than not, they become long-term unemployed based on the figures provided earlier by my colleague, Mr. John McKeon. This is the situation we are trying to avoid. Basically, since 1997 the Department has not engaged properly with lone-parent families. We have had a situation in which we gave them an income support payment and left them. We had nothing in terms of follow-up and did not engage with them in terms of education, training or employment supports to identify what they needed to bring in or to assist them to have better outcomes for themselves and their children.

One point I wish to highlight to the committee is just how significant are the changes the jobseeker's allowance transition payment has introduced in this regard. When the reform in its current guise was first introduced in legislation in 2012, there was huge fear among lone parents, which was completely understandable, that in its original guise, from the time the child was aged seven they would be expected to be available and genuinely seeking full-time work. Realistically, how could that be achieved for a lone parent with a young child in terms of child care, about which we have already talked today? It could not and that is why the jobseeker's allowance transition payment was introduced the following year. It is in recognition that the existing supports for the child care element were not there and yet is addressing the fact that lone parents had a justifiable fear that they would be required to seek employment and take up any sort of job. This alludes to a point raised by Deputy Joan Collins in respect of precarious employment. That is now removed and they will not be required, as I stated in my opening statement, in terms of taking up a job. They will be supported and will have the opportunity to have an intensive engagement with a case officer. For the first time ever, they will have a personal development plan, the idea being to give them the opportunity to upskill and get a better job for themselves and their children.

As for the 30,000 people who are coming off the scheme in July, I wish to highlight that two thirds of those people will not suffer any loss or in fact will gain on foot of this reform and it is important to note that. Obviously, however, the inverse of this point concerns the one third who will suffer a loss. I am familiar with the figures that Single Parents Acting for the Rights of Kids, SPARK, has produced in that regard. However, of that one third, it is important to note that 60% of them have the opportunity, if they can increase their hours of work and qualify for family income supplement, to be better off financially than they are at present. This is a very important message we are trying to get out to lone parents and it is true. These are people who do not currently qualify for the family income supplement. I believe I was asked by Deputy Ryan whether the figures produced by SPARK are accurate. While they are not quite 100% accurate, they are in the ball park and give one a sense of the scale. I will not argue over very small amounts of money and they are accurate in that context. However, it is important to note that we have been through two Julys already in respect of this reform and I refer to what the evidence shows as to what happened on those two points. From our perspective, there is no evidence to date that lone parents are giving up work. They make the transition to the jobseeker's allowance transition payment or - as we constantly are pushing - the family income supplement. Over the past two Julys, we have noticed there has been a significant increase in lone parents making first-time applications for the family income supplement. This indicates they are getting up to 19 hours work per week and when they do that, they are financially better off than they were under the one-parent family payment scheme. On foot of the introduction of the back-to-work family dividend, the position is further improved. However, I acknowledge the broad lines of the figures that SPARK has produced. There is a cohort of people who will lose out but the reform must be put in the context of the entire population of lone parents.

The issue of carers came up quite regularly. As the Tánaiste announced two weeks ago in the Dáil, this issue is being examined and is almost at a final stage. I cannot go into anything more than that but the Department is highly conscious of the loss in this regard. I acknowledge that €86 per week is a highly significant loss and as the Tánaiste has stated, this matter is under serious consideration at present. I cannot say anything more than that at present.