Willie O'Dea (Limerick City, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I thank the witness for her presentation. I am conscious of the fact that her job is to administer the scheme as it stands. Policy is a matter for the Government and administration is a matter for the public service. I have a question for the Minister on lone parents later on this afternoon so I will have a chance to discuss the policy there. The witness stated that there was regular consultation with lone parents right throughout the process whereby the change was brought about. The implication seems to be that they more or less went along with it. That does not seem to accord with the reality. I have been in regular discussion with the various lone-parents groups and I have not met anybody, quite frankly, who is happy with the changes. I say this with the greatest of respect to the witness. The picture she paints does not seem to accord with the reality as experienced by me on the ground. I have constant complaints through my constituency office from lone parents who have lost out. These are working lone parents, not non-working lone parents for whom nothing has changed. I understand that the basis of the policy is to activate more lone parents and get them out to work. However, I have a regular flow of complaints - the latest was last weekend - from single parents whose income is less as a result of these changes. We had a visit last week from the Society of St. Vincent de Paul. The written submission it provided us with stated, "The main impacts of the reform of the OFP have been to reduce the income of lone parents in employment; and to reduce the likelihood of lone parents who are not in employment, education or training to take up work or education in the near future". That is the conclusion reached by Society of St. Vincent de Paul, having done a survey on the matter.

We are now also in possession of the Millar report. The Millar report is very critical of the changes. It states that the OFP "needs revision". It states that the OFP has had the perverse consequences of both reducing household income and reducing the incentive to go out to work. I came into possession yesterday of a matrix done by SPARK, one of the organisations representing lone parents, that showed clearly the changes to the detriment of working lone parents, especially once the back-to-work family dividend ceases. As we know, it is only a two-year payment of 100% for the first year and 50% for the second. Therefore, I am a bit baffled to hear that everything seems to be grand, incomes are up and everybody is happy. I cannot speak for my colleagues and I can only speak for myself. This is the experience I have had. This is what I have been told by organisations such as the Society of St. Vincent de Paul, SPARK and all the different organisations representing single parents. As I say, it accords with my experience. I do not want to take up too much time. How does the witness reconcile that and answer all of these criticisms? Everybody seems to be unhappy from the point of view of working lone parents.

I understand that a single parent who is working - and, therefore, getting FIS - and who is in receipt of maintenance payments, will be advised, or there is going to be a campaign, by at least one or more of the organisations representing the sector, to the effect that he or she should transfer from FIS back to JST when the back-to-work family dividend runs out. This will be done on the basis that he or she will be better off. I have been sent figures which prove this. If the basis of the policy is activation and to encourage single parents to go out to work, the effect of it seems to be that there will be thousands of single parents advised next year - by way of a public campaign - to go from work and FIS back to JST. The latter is exactly the opposite of the direction in which the policy was supposed to lead them.