Róisín Shortall (Dublin North West, Labour)

I move amendment No. 10:

In page 9, to delete lines 17 to 35.

This amendment is connected to the previous one and concerns the definition of a parent in respect of the lone parent allowance. According to the briefing, this change was being made to cater for scenarios such as the one I outlined in respect of the fostering case. I was advised that this was why the Minister was enabling a broader definition of "parent". When I read the definition, that seemed to be what the Minister was doing in the first half, but subsection (2) contains a saver clause. On the one hand, the Minister claims she is broadening the definition, but, on the other, subsection (2) states in this new broader definition that:

Subsection (1) shall not apply, where a person's entitlement to one-parent family payment has been established before the coming into operation of that subsection, for the duration of that person's continuous entitlement to one-parent family payment.

I was concerned when I read that saver clause because it seems to me that the Minister had to insert it, stating that anybody who has already got an entitlement to a one parent family payment will not be affected by this change. Quite clearly, the intention of this change is to further restrict the one parent family payment. This is also contrary to the briefing I was given. In those circumstances, I have no choice but to object to the whole section and seek its deletion. I do not think the Minister knows what she is doing concerning changes to the lone parent definition.

See this speech in context