Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance) | Oireachtas source

Section 10 represents an effort on the part of the Minister to undo the damage that was done in the last budget. It is prompted by the protests of lone parents and organisations representing them, including SPARK and One Family, and points made on their behalf from the Opposition setting out how retrograde was the move to phase in the elimination of the one-parent family payment when children reach the age of seven. Prompted by those protests and expressions of concern, the Minister said she would not go ahead with the provisions unless we had a Scandinavian model of child care. That was a correct acknowledgement of the concerns that had been raised with her about the impact of this budget measure on lone parents, a group which, as the Minister is well aware, suffers disproportionately from deprivation and poverty. Self-evidently, as many of us thought would be the case, we do not have a Scandinavian model of child care less than one year on and are very unlikely to have one any time soon.

While section 10 is an attempt to undo the damage and fill the gap, it does not fully address the problem. Given the fact that we do not have a Scandinavian model of child care, it raises the question of why we do not simply reverse completely the move that was made in the last budget. That is what we should do. One of the reasons is that in the transition payment the Minister proposes, she defeats the very purpose of encouraging and incentivising people to work, which she would generally promote. As the Department's officials acknowledged in a briefing to Opposition Members and representatives of lone-parent organisations, lone parents who are working and earning €200 per week will lose €39 per week. That represents for them a direct disincentive to work. It simply cannot be justified, particularly when lone parents suffer disproportionately from disadvantage and poverty. How can the Minister justify it? It is utterly unfair.

Parenting is work. It is not sitting around doing nothing. Being a lone parent is double work. A lone parent does not have the supports one might get from a partner. There are all those extra difficulties. If people see a financial loss as significant as the one that will result from the Bill when they are working, it will be a direct disincentive to work as well as imposing significant hardship. It cannot be justified. While my amendment has been ruled out of order as it proposes a charge on the Exchequer, the Minister could amend the section to provide that people who are working do not suffer financially when making the transition to the new payment. They should not see a reduction in their incomes. If they do, it is a disincentive to work. That is self-evident. It is not the case for people who are not working as they will get the full payment, which is the result, as I understand it, of the difference in the income disregard for one-parent family payment and that for jobseeker's allowance. It is wrong and the Minister cannot justify it. She must address the problem.

SPARK raised a further issue in this context. There seems to have been no consideration of how maintenance payments will be treated in assessments of means. SPARK has urged the Minister to consider this issue, which may have a hugely negative effect on lone parents' incomes. SPARK says this issue illustrates how little impact-assessment research has been carried out as to how the changes the Minister is making might affect lone-parent families.

See this speech in context