Mr. Niall Egan:

Many questions were asked, particularly on poverty. Deputy John Brady raised poverty rates in 2013. He said the rate among lone parents was 23%. Deputy Joan Collins raised the figures for 2014, which are from the survey of income and living conditions, which provides the most recent figures we have. I acknowledge there has been a small drop, down to 22.1%, but both Deputies are correct that lone parents have suffered and continue to suffer in this regard. They are much more at risk of poverty than any other cohort. That is not a new story, however. The poverty rates of ten years ago, in 2006, were 50% higher than those of today. Almost 34% of lone parents were in consistent poverty ten years ago.

That was four and a half times the ratio in the general population. Currently, it is two and a half times. That is not acceptable, but we have had a major problem with poverty in respect of lone parents. I wish to bring this to the committee's attention. It is what the OECD report picked up on in 2003. The OECD recognised that we had an issue, pointing out that - I agree with Senator Higgins on this - the State did not engage with lone parents for years. We put them on a payment for up to 18 or 22 years in respect of a single child, or even longer if they had several children, and we did not engage with them. As Ms Ryan stated, those payments were processed centrally in a location in Sligo and were not dealt with locally. Due to how the Department had structured itself, lone parents were distant from what supports were available. This is one of the reasons referenced in the OECD report.

The principle behind the reforms is to break that down and bring lone parents much closer to available supports. Combining the public employment service with the income supports traditionally provided by the Department has allowed for a better relationship with all individuals - jobseekers, recipients of the one-parent family payment and lone parents who are receiving jobseeker's transitional payment, JST. They know where they can go to get supports.

As my colleague stated, the forms were not introduced at the best time economically and their introduction has caused people a loss. That there have been issues with the forms must be acknowledged.

I wish to bring a further point to the committee's attention. Any lone parent who is in receipt of the family income supplement, FIS, is not at risk of poverty. Such lone parents and their families are out of consistent poverty. We can categorically state this. Based on 2014 data, the consistent poverty threshold for a lone parent with one child is €278 per week. If that lone parent is receiving a combination of earnings from employment of 19 hours at the minimum wage, which is the smallest amount of money that someone can get from employment, and FIS, he or she is earning in excess of €100 more than the threshold. I acknowledge that he or she may be in deprivation and have issues with, for example, the cost of child care. We all know that child care is expensive and is a major issue for many of the Department's customers. However, FIS is a very effective tool for lifting lone parents out of poverty.

Deputy Brady asked how many children of lone parents were at risk of consistent poverty. I do not have the definitive figure for him but, based on our most up-to-date figures, there are 134,000 children living in households that are in consistent poverty. That is unacceptable. The single largest cohort within that group are the children of lone parents. Those who are most at risk of poverty and are the furthest down are those lone parents who have no income other than social welfare. The aim of what we are trying to do is to help lone parents on an individual basis by engaging with them, in particular those who are not in employment, and finding for them whatever supports are available. Importantly, the JST does not require them to seek work. It allows an engagement process to take place between our case officers and an individual based on his or her circumstances. If that lone parent is in a position and wishes to return to employment, the case officer will offer the available supports. This may include access to FIS, the back to work family dividend or subsidised child care. Obviously, subsidised child care is not as widespread or available as we would like, but the Government intends to examine that matter. This is the nature of reform.

Deputy Collins raised the issue of losses and referred to SPARK's figures specifically. Am I correct that those losses were based on someone who worked 20 hours?