Mr. Niall Egan:

I need to be categorical with regard to maintenance. With regard to incidents of abusive partners, the Department's policy is very clear on that. We will not require a lone parent to seek maintenance where there has been an abusive relationship in the past. We have clarified that with a few lone parent representative groups because that issue had been raised with us, and I want to be clear on it. We acknowledge the very difficult circumstances, and we do not want to put people into dangerous situations.

On maintenance and the liable relative provision in particular, to be clear, the Department did not forget to include the liable relative provision in the jobseeker's transition. The original policy intention of the liable relative provision originates in the concept of the State recouping the cost of paying the one parent family payment. It was introduced in 1995 or 1996. The number of lone parents in receipt of a payment for maintenance is approximately 35%, yet we know the liable relative provision relates to fewer than 8%. We know that many lone parents, through existing arrangements, have that ability and using the family law provisions, they have an obligation to maintain a child.

Extending the liable relative provision to the jobseeker's transition payment is complex because not all lone parents who transitioned off the one parent family payment went on to the jobseeker's transition payment. Jobseeker's transition, by its very nature, is done over seven years. From our Department's perspective, in theory, we could consider extending it to all our schemes across the board. However, that would entirely duplicate a system that exists under family law and the relevant support services. I refer to the family mediation service and the legal aid board that already provide assistance to people seeking maintenance supports. While we are looking at this issue, I stress that we are operating in a complicated landscape.