Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)

These provisions are being introduced to allow the lone parents benefit system to change gradually so that, by 2015, only children up to seven years of age and their parents will qualify for this payment. I had congratulated the Government on the gradual change to voluntary contributions and this should also be a more gradual change. There is a substantial jump for those who qualify. Year by year, it reduces from 14 years to 13 years to 12 years and then there is a sudden five-year jump to seven years of age in 2014. While this is being introduced, the promise from the Minister is that we will see the delivery of child care support but this is not being presented as the Tánaiste suggested, coupled with this legislation. If the two were coupled, we would produce a table such as that produced by the advisers, showing the transitional arrangement for how many additional after-school places and holiday places are made available between the ages of seven and 14 years. While reducing the number who qualify on one hand, we would be increasing the number of places available in Irish society. That is not there and it is for that reason I object to the additional amendments put by the Minister. I object to the provisions in the Bill to change from a system which recognised a child as a child until the age of 14 for the purpose of qualifying for lone parent assistance and to drop this to seven years of age.

The Labour Party opposed the Fianna Fáil change from 18 years to 14 years quite vociferously just two years ago and made proper arguments against it. Those arguments still stand and are probably even more relevant given the financial crisis and the fact there has been no increased investment in child care in the country since the passage of that Fianna Fáil Bill. At the age of 14 young people can travel home alone and look after themselves for a period, although they should not be left alone for long periods such as during holiday time, particularly over the long summer holidays. These are the things that should be taken into account when trying to force lone parents into a jobseeker system. The consequence of the proposed change is that these parents will move from the payment for lone parents to the jobseeker payment, which means they must actively seek work and be available for full-time work. If that work presents, the parent will struggle to ensure proper arrangements are in place for the child.

I do not see the logic behind the need to make the changes the Minister has introduced. If these changes were not good enough for the Labour Party two years ago, why are they good enough today when we are in a worse situation? The Minister made the point in her contributions on this and the previous section that the purpose of the Bill is to make lone parents more financially independent. That is illogical. The reason they are not financially independent is they do not have jobs, but they are not likely to get jobs in the current climate, particularly if they do not have additional supports such as child care. Also, the changes the Minister introduced in December in budget 2012 substantially undermined many of the additional supports lone parents had in recognition of the difficult job they have in society and of the need to ensure a progression from social welfare to work or education.

There is a perception that lone parents do not work, but that is not the reality. The Department suggests that only 43% of lone parents are in work, whether full-time or part-time. However, that figure should probably be closer to 60% taking into consideration those fully engaged in education to improve their qualifications so as to have greater access to the work market. This proves that the majority of lone parents are actively working or seeking work and seek to change their circumstances in order to provide better for their children. I do not have the figures to hand but I remember that when we were debating the 2010 change, a Government report at the time suggested that by the time the youngest child of a lone parent had reached the age of seven, the parent was no longer dependent on lone parent's allowance and had moved into employment and no longer qualified for it. Therefore, there has never been a block on lone parents seeking or engaging in work, other than the blockages the Government and the state of the economy have put in their way, such as the lack of child care facilities, after school care and the lack of education. Now too, due to Government policy, the additional supports that allowed people make that transition have been reduced. The increasing lack of jobs is also a significant block to returning to work. I have already mentioned that there are 50 people on the live register for every job vacancy, but in Germany, which is benefiting from Ireland's misery, that statistic is six to one.

These amendments are logical based on section 4, to which I was opposed. The Tánaiste said that this part of the Social Welfare and Pensions Bill would be coupled with changes, but we have not seen any coupling. I have looked through the legislative programme a number of times since he made that comment, but have seen no proposed legislation under the education or children and youth affairs umbrella that could be coupled with the proposed changes. No such legislation is due in the summer session and none is listed in section B, the section which would normally be published by the end of the year. The Minister said that she will not proceed with this before the end of the year, but there is no legislation promised in the legislative programme that can be coupled with it. That programme was only presented to us on 17 April, just two weeks after the publication of this Bill and two or three days before she made the statement that she would ensure delivery of after school care. There is nothing listed in section B under the Department of Education and Skills that is relevant to that and there is no relevant legislation promised under the Department of Children and Youth Affairs. Furthermore, there is no relevant promised legislation in the last section of the legislative programme. There is only one Bill there listed under the Department of Education and Skills and it is unrelated to this. The last section of the legislative programme includes the Bills that may be produced at some stage in the lifetime of the Government. The promise made by the Minister is hollow because there is no legislative provision that will collapse this provision come budget 2013 until when the Minister says she will not allow this to proceed.

Parts of this Bill will proceed over the next number of weeks and months. Steps have already been taken for that and as of next week, any new applicant will be affected. Therefore, how can the Minister change this in December and say she will not proceed? She is proceeding with the changes from enactment date, 3 May.

I am opposing these provisions. If at all possible I ask the Minister to explain the reason it has not been more graduated as I have suggested, especially in the case of those already in receipt of this payment, as is the practice in any other major social welfare change.

See this speech in context