Willie O'Dea (Limerick City, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the change which represents a substantial improvement on what went before, although I am bound to say I am a little confused at the idea that someone with a child up to the age of 14 years who has to transfer from lone parent's allowance to jobseeker's allowance because his or her child has passed the 12 years of age threshold will not be compelled to prove that he or she is looking for work. On the other hand, such persons will be compelled to engage in the activation process which is supposed to be something that prepares them for work. Perhaps what the Minister has in mind is the future when they are finally in a position to look for work or when they are in a position that they have constantly to be seeking work.

The difficulty is that a substantial proportion of the population of this country is at risk of poverty and is living below the internationally accepted poverty line. The Minister will agree that lone parents feature largely in that proportion. The risk of poverty is exceptionally prevalent among lone parents. It has been recognised that the best way to get oneself out of poverty is to get a job of some sort. That is the reason that, traditionally, people in receipt of lone parent's allowance have been entitled to hold on to their allowance while working and to earn up to a certain amount. A limit applies, and at that stage it begins to come down. The Government has reduced that limit, not once but twice. In other words, if people go out to work, they must earn less if they wish to hold on to their full lone parent's allowance. That is a disincentive. The net result of these changes will mean that as the youngest child reaches the requisite age, people will be taken out of the category of lone parent, in which they are permitted to work and earn while keeping the lone parent's allowance, and put on jobseeker's allowance which contains a disincentive to work because once a person is working, the allowance is deducted euro for euro. There is also the question of availability for work. One would probably lose the jobseeker's allowance once one goes out to work. That is regressive.

I presume my amendment No. 12 is out of order but it is an attempt to delay this process by saying that the Minister has discretion as to when to introduce the measure. It might not be the most elegant way to do it but that is what my amendment tries to achieve.

As for the people who will be directly affected by this section, I have a letter which a constituent of mine received from the Minister's Department. This case demonstrates very clearly that people who have gone out to work, many of whom are lone parents doing part-time work, will be badly affected. My constituent is working two days a week. Her net income is €173. She receives €190 lone parent's allowance and €40 family income supplement, FIS, payment because she in low-paid employment. The letter from the Department is dated 30 May 2013. It informed her that because her eldest child has now reached the age of 12 years, her lone parent's allowance will be due to cease from 27 June 2013. As a result of her losing her lone parent's allowance, she will get an increase in her FIS payment. She was given a phone number for information on the amount of FIS payment she would receive to compensate her for her loss of lone parent's allowance. As an experiment I tried the number myself. I tried several times and I might as well have been ringing another galaxy. I challenge anyone from the Department to start ringing this number - 043 3340053 - in the morning to see how long it takes to get through. Eventually, I pursued my own inquiries in the Department of Social Protection. The answer is obvious that she will get 60%. The increase in FIS payment will be 60% of what she is losing. She is losing €190 and she will get €114. That is a drop of €76 per week. This lady is in rented accommodation. As she is working part-time, she is unable to get rent allowance.

Her rent is of the order of €650 per month, which means her entire wage is going on it. Instead of living on €190 per week, she is now expected to live on €114 per week. That is the net result of the provision and it is replicated for any lone parent who is working in a part-time job and who will, almost inevitably, be in receipt of family income supplement on the basis that the combined lone-parent payment and income from a part-time job is under the threshold. It is a very substantial loss. This is a person who took it upon herself to go out and get whatever work she could. It is only a part-time job for two days a week, which is what she could get, but she is doing her very best to lift herself out of poverty. Yet this is the net result of the Government's legislation. While I do not know what the cost implications are, the Minister should reflect on the impact on such people. I can give her a copy of the letter and bring the exact case to her attention if she so desires. While I do not think it would change anything, I will send it on as I would like her to look at it to see the effect the policy is having on real people. A woman who was living on €190 per week is now expected to live on €114 while looking after a school-going child.

The Minister should reflect on what she is doing when introducing these changes. I do not care where they originated or what Government proposed them initially, but they will now cause great hardship to very vulnerable people and they should be delayed. I do not say there will not come a time when it is desirable to change the law along the lines the Minister proposes, but now is not that time.

See this speech in context