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

I do not have a major problem with the proposition contained in the Bill. My problem was with the initial changes. If it provides a facility for single parents to return to education or encourages them in any way, that is a welcome step. It is very challenging for one - or two - parents to raise children in today's climate and anything that can be done to encourage people to get further education and to enhance their ability to do that is acceptable.

However, we must remember that the jobs are not available, so if there is a punishment for not engaging fully we must be mindful of that. The last available figures indicated there were 50 unemployed people for every job vacancy. It might have changed since due to the huge number of young people, and indeed older people, who left the country and, perhaps, skewed the unemployment and jobs figures.

I am still unhappy with the change in the age. If the Minister reversed the changes that were made from 12 years to seven years and this proposal continued, it would have been a recognition of the likelihood that there will not be a Scandinavian model in place for at least another ten years, if not more. That would have addressed many of the concerns because these are additional supports.

The Minister is talking about moving people from the lone parent family payment to the jobseeker's allowance once the youngest child reaches seven, albeit with certain transitional arrangements in place. It would be much easier if the lone parent family payment were retained until the child was 12, or 14, as was once the case, and if there were as much access to training and work as possible. A myth created in this debate is that every lone parent who was in receipt of the payment was in receipt of it from the birth of the child until the child reached the maximum age in respect of which the payment could be made available. My information is that the majority stopped receiving the payment when full-time work became available. I do not know the current position with work not being available. In the past, the majority took up work when it was available or they received training. The issue was addressed in the past.

The areas where the lone payment allowance was most concentrated were areas in which there were many difficulties, including disadvantage. It was not just lone parents - they were mostly women - who were suffering the consequences of disadvantage; the whole community suffered. These are challenges that society has not fully addressed. Recent changes to the social welfare code have exacerbated some of the problems in the areas in question. While this legislation is positive by comparison to the last social welfare legislation, it is not where it should be. Although I do not oppose the measure before us, I contend the reason for it is that the Minister examined retrospectively what the Opposition said about the consequences of the changes and noted the actions of groups such as SPARK or One Family in campaigning to highlight how lone parent families were disproportionately affected by the last two budgets cuts in particular by comparison with the majority of others on social welfare. In some ways, this Bill is a positive step but it does not address the changes and regressive steps that have been taken.

Since the movement of lone parent families to the jobseeker's allowance is a transitional measure, I tabled a related amendment, but it was ruled out of order. Amendment No. 2 concerns those who are forced to retire at the age of 65 because of their contracts. I intended that there should be some kind of traditional payment for them. The affected individuals are forced to apply for the jobseeker's benefit or allowance. If the Minister can make a transitional arrangement for a lone parent family, such an arrangement could be encouraged for those who are retiring at 65 so that the restriction pertaining to the jobseeker's allowance, namely, that one must actively seek work, will not apply. I argued that what is occurring is ridiculous. Workers are being informed at 65 that they must retire in some months although the State transitional pension has disappeared. There is no pre-retirement allowance of the kind that existed in the past. The Minister should reintroduce the pre-retirement allowance. It is not valuable for the State to be pursuing people of 65 and 66 to make them seek work actively for one year. Obviously, they should be encouraged to do so. If they are lucky enough to get work, that is fine. The number of individuals affected is reducing because most people from now on will have contracts lasting until the age of 68.

See this speech in context