Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)

I will be relevant because the Minister has managed to raise a number of interesting points in response to our contributions. I have tried to be constructive in this debate. I said from the outset that I do not have a problem with seven being the age of eligibility if the relevant supports are in place. It is not right to misquote us and say we are opposed to the measure; it is absolute claptrap. The Minister needs to listen. She referred to the conference on the ESRI report, which I have not seen, but I know the position from my constituency, which is one of the most disadvantaged in the country and which has a considerable number of lone parents, some of whom are dependent on lone parent family payments and others of whom are in work or are lucky enough to receive family supports or others supports, in the form of maintenance payments, from the father of the children. I acknowledge this and deal with it on an ongoing basis. The problems have been created not only by the current Government but also by the previous Government because of a lack of investment in education.

The Minister needs to listen to what is being said. The required services are not in place, as she acknowledged. However, we have not heard from the Minister for Education and Skills, Deputy Quinn, or the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs, Deputy Frances Fitzgerald, this week. It would have been great if a committee had been in a position to invite them or their officials to appear before it to outline the plan for the additional supports that are not, but should be, in place. Such supports are evident in Canada and the Six Counties, and Scandinavia in particular. The Scandinavian model is the one we aspire to. Where is the promise of investment?

The Minister met representatives of the troika. We are stuck in here today so I do not know what progress has been made today but I know the troika has not been approached by the Government to invest a number of billions of euro in the education system. The Minister stated she would invest the money if she had it. She had it but gave it away to Anglo Irish Bank and will continually do so. She has a choice to invest in education, after-school services and child care facilities. If she made this choice, we could follow the model Finland set out for us. She could couple this with implementing the changes over a transitionary period. What I propose is not happening and the Minister does not have a plan. What the Minister proposes, therefore, should not proceed, to use her own words.

I agree with the Minister that one way to break the cycle of poverty is education. Many Governments have invested in education but the current Government confirmed, only a number of weeks ago in this House, cuts to DEIS programmes and schools dealing with disadvantage. It backed down on some of the cuts but others are going ahead. There are schools that are now in dire straits because of cuts being imposed by the Minister. She can blame Fianna Fáil or whoever else she wants but the decision lies with the current Government.

There are cuts to community employment programmes, which were among the vehicles being used by single parents, in particular, to educate themselves and obtain further training and qualifications. These programmes are all being affected. It will now be a lot more difficult for lone parents to gain access to community employment given the additional costs the Minister has imposed.

If the Minister does not remember the cuts, she will find them listed in OPEN's document "7 is TOO YOUNG". The affected benefits include rent supplement and child benefit. Not all applied exclusively to one parent families but some were directed exclusively at them and they will suffer the consequences, especially in regard to community employment. Those cuts will push them away from one of the pathways to work. They might not have been working ideally but cutting the training and materials grant is not the way to ensure community employment schemes work. I know the Minister will say the progression rates from community employment schemes to work were terrible. Those figures are based on those participating in community employment schemes at the height of the boom when work was available to the vast majority of people. Many of those on community employment schemes found it more difficult to access the jobs market and were struggling to get qualifications. Those progression rates were not based on today's figures. Even today, the progression rates would not be great because there are no jobs. Time and again we come back to that key point.

It is all very well to change the age from 14 to seven but all one is doing is moving people from the lone parent payment to jobseeker's allowance. One is not moving them into education because the education supports are not in place and are not likely to be because, according to itself, this Government does not have the money even though it is spending it in a different way. That is where the money should be spent.

The Minister accused us of scare-mongering but I have shied away from scare-mongering. She announced these changes and proved to lone parents that she will make substantial changes to the way they are trying to survive in society. There is no denying the progress over the years in terms of education. The reason Ireland is regarded as a developed country is specifically because of those changes. I am a firm believer that if we educate our children, we will have a better economy in the future but we must create the jobs to keep them here and must not export them abroad.

I welcomed the commitment from the Minister last week that this will not proceed without the changes which are not only sought by me, but by those engaging with the Department, through their lobby groups, and with the people directly affected. OPEN set out some of the supports which should be in place and it is probably more capable of doing so than I am. It said after school care provision which is affordable, of consistently high quality and widely available should be in place, but that does not exist. It said a programme and the resources to accompany it which provides proper career guidance to lone parents should be in place, but that does not exist. It said training and education which leads to a career that moves a lone parent out of poverty and into work should be in place. Some training and education is available. The pathways to work and NEES programmes, when fully rolled out, will, hopefully, address that. I acknowledge progress can be made.

OPEN quoted the submission made by the Department to the comprehensive review on expenditure. It stated:

DSP is of the view that significant structural reform of the schemes and services operated by DSP is urgently required in order to better utilise scarce resources and, most importantly, produce better outcomes. [Nobody denies that.] The provision of targeted income support, training, development and employment services as appropriate, based on individual needs and circumstances, is the priority with the twin aims of reducing the risk of poverty and maximising employability. [That is not a problem.]

Accordingly, it is necessary to reform the schemes and services so as to ensure an adequate and sustainable system in the years ahead while ensuring that they are compatible with realising the potential of all.

We have no problem at all with that. The problem is that when the new service, NEES, was being set up, it was clear that lone parents would not be its priority. The Department stated that once activation NEES programmes were rolled out to cater for people on the live register, it would then cater for lone parents - the after thought - and people claiming illness and disability payments. One of the way to ensure lone parents will be dealt with is if they are no longer lone parents.

A point I made earlier, which the Minister confirmed, was that the vast majority of lone parents are no longer in receipt of the lone parent payment once a child has reached seven years of age because she said the age is 6.1 years. That proves there is progression if the jobs are available.

See this speech in context