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

The Minister has not really addressed the substantial issue that has been raised by a number of Deputies and which is the basis of my amendment and argument. The argument was put to me by SPARK, bearing in mind the impact this legislation will have on lone parents who are working. It will hurt them financially and act as a disincentive to work. The measure is going in precisely the opposite direction to the direction the Minister claims she wants to go. When she states we all need to address seriously the question of lone parents engaging with work, education and training, she should start by acknowledging that a very significant number of lone parents want to do so. In so far as they have been given the opportunities, incentives and supports to seek work or training, they have sought them. The number engaging has fallen recently given the impact of the recession and cuts, yet approximately 36% or 37% of lone parents are working. The percentage was considerably higher some years ago. It is obvious that if the Minister wants people to work, she should incentivise their doing so. One of the best incentives is to have well-paid jobs available such that going to work would be beneficial financially to one's family. I acknowledge there is not much work at present. It certainly flies in the face of wanting to move in the direction of incentivising work if lone parents are to be hit and hurt financially if they are working when their children reach the age of seven. The Minister cannot justify or stand over this. She has not addressed the specific problem.

When one asks the fair question as to why lone parents suffer disproportionately from poverty and disadvantage, the Minister implies it is because the lone parent family system was too passive and did not encourage or assist lone parents in engaging with education, training and employment. There is a much more fundamental answer, namely, the cost of child care. The latter is the difficulty. The Minister acknowledged this. As a result of the lobbying and protesting of lone parents' organisations after the budget announcements, and having thought about the matter, the Minister said the Department would not go ahead with its proposal unless we had a Scandinavian model of child care. She acknowledged this. The answer is that one must have the supports and child care, but we do not have them. The Minister states there are 6,000 new places for after-school care but this is against a backdrop in which the Department estimates the budgetary changes will affect 63,000 claimants.

Of course it is an improvement, but 6,000 is a tiny drop in the ocean compared to the number of claimants who will be affected by the changes the Department proposes to make.

We need incentives for people to work, of which the most important is the availability of good, well-paid jobs, and there are not many of them. That is not the sole responsibility of the Minister's Department - rather, it concerns the Government - but it is what we need. We also need child care to enable people who have shown their willingness to work to do so. A high proportion worked when it made sense for them to do so or when jobs were available. The system may not be working for some people. We need to improve it and it could be more proactive. That is not just true of lone parents, to which the Minister alluded; it is true of many groups in our society. Many people who want to work are not getting the help they need. They want to get back into work and be retrained and educated, but are not getting the help and assistance to do so. We should be proactive in giving people assistance, but the problem is that there are people, such as lone parents, for whom it is difficult because of the lack of supports and financial incentives. Will they be subject to the very draconian amendments the Minister has tabled in terms of reducing or even cutting off payments if they do not engage with the system? I presume they will be subject to them. That is pretty serious, given that the cuts that have been imposed by the Minister are acting as a disincentive for people to work when it is already difficult for them to do so. They will be disincentivised and hit financially. If they cannot sustain work for whatever reason they could potentially be subject to draconian measures and be further punished for things that are not their fault. Parents are struggling to bring up children in difficult financial circumstances.

The Minister has not addressed the key issue. Lone parents want to work but it is difficult to do so, and it is more difficult when they lose money because of the fact that they are working, as is the case with the transition payment. It is better than what was announced in the budget but it is still a problem.

See this speech in context