Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

This section introduces a new provision. While I understand what the Minister is attempting to do, it does not address the change to the one parent family payment which was introduced in previous legislation. It is trying to undo something that should not have been done in the first place. When the Minister made her most recent changes to the one parent family payment, she said child care of the standard found in Scandinavian countries would be available. This is recognition that this will not be available for the foreseeable future and that we are stuck with this provision. This was cobbled together to try to take heed of that position, rather than repealing the changes she made which were regressive.

The transition payment will be only applicable to those who are in the system. It is not open to those who applied for the payment after the changes were made in the last budget and the previous legislation. That is regressive. If this provision is to stand, it should apply to all one parent family payments. When we were debating the changes affecting one parent families in the past few budgets, I remember a previous transition payment for those moving into employment. It allowed them to retain some of their benefits. That payment is not being reinstated because, obviously, jobs are not available, which is reflected in the fact that the unemployment level is high among those in receipt of the one parent family payment, even after the changes made.

While I welcome the fact that the Minister is making some steps in the right direction, the easiest way would have been to repeal the changes she made of reducing the payment entitlement for a child from 12 years of age as it was at that stage to seven years of age. What should have been done was to have reinstated it to 14 years of age as it was originally. The work should have been done to ensure the roll-out of the proper child care facilities and services throughout the country, such as after-school clubs and the additional supports to ensure children up to the age of 14 years could be protected. At the moment as the law stands, a child could be home alone from the age of seven years while a parent is working. In the past it was 12 years. At least at 14 years of age there is some maturity, but as a rule, even children at that age should not be left unaccompanied by an adult for long periods of time.

Other Deputies have expressed an interest in speaking on this section. Some of the various groups which have lobbied on the one-parent family payments have managed to obtain a cursory response, but none has made any detailed submission because, like us, they have not had sufficient opportunity. As I said on the Order of Business, it is ridiculous that this Bill was produced in such a hurry. There are a significant number of amendments with 24 pages of amendments from the Minister. We are dealing with Committee and Report Stages tonight. There is not sufficient time to tease out the details of the provisions in the proper fashion. I still do not understand the reason for the urgency to produce this legislation other than that somebody will benefit if it is passed this week as it will come into effect quicker. I do not think a delay of one or two weeks would have made a significant difference and it would have allowed us to tease out the positive aspects and, from our end, to have encouraged the Minister to be more positive in some parts of the Bill.

It is important to get it right. The original Bill was passed only a number of months ago and it contained some of these changes, but the Minister is unpicking it, despite the warnings from this side of the House that it is wrong. At least the Minister has listened and moved a little way. She should have listened in the first place and there should have been a proper debate on social welfare legislation on any of the pieces of social welfare legislation. This Government and the previous Government have been guilty of rushing Bills through the House. Sometimes there is a need to put legislation in place once the budget has been passed, but the second social welfare Bill each year is usually more considered over a longer debate. I presumed this would have been the case with this legislation.

See this speech in context