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

Like the other Deputies, I believe the Bill is in the main positive, but it represents a missed opportunity to address a problem that is now quantified regarding working single parents. Some years ago when the announcement was made that changes were to come into effect as of July 2015, we did not have exact figures for how many people would be affected and to what degree. Those who opposed it understood at the time the effects on working lone parents and those who were in education. In particular we were not persuaded at the time by the Minister, who is still Minister but is now also Tánaiste, when she promised that changes to the one-parent family payment would not proceed unless we had a Scandinavian model of child care.

That was pie in the sky and is still pie in the sky because Ireland is recognised as having one of the highest, if not the highest, child care costs of any country in the world, which makes it difficult for anyone in work. To date, with their one-parent family payment they have been able to subsidise going back to work and now in many instances they will be penalised.

Those on this side of the House and certain Government backbenchers have raised with the Minister of State and the Tánaiste the question of the effects on those in receipt of SUSI grants. The answer we have been given to date is that there are ongoing negotiations and discussions between the two Departments. Those discussions only seem to have been triggered since Christmas when the figures started to emerge. However, they should have been triggered two years ago when this legislation was put forward first. We still do not have a positive outcome on that.

The only social welfare legislation on the schedule for this year is the next social welfare Bill which will come into being in October or November, which means there is a potential that a number of lone parents who are in education and in receipt of SUSI grants will be substantially affected. It is not contained in this Bill; that is the problem.

We have highlighted concerns over the Bill and the Minister of State has answered them. In the main this is a positive Bill and is to be welcomed. It is often very difficult to vote against a social welfare Bill which is not cutting people's payments. All it is doing is tinkering around with a system and in some cases giving money. In this case there is a dividend and that is welcome. It is an approach that is to be welcomed in some ways because it is making work pay, but in other ways it should be addressing funding.

I have another problem with social welfare legislation, which is not the fault of the Minister of State or his officials. I can take all the time in the world to prepare amendments, whether they are positive or negative from a Government point of view, but I cannot put them forward and we cannot debate them on Report Stage or even on Committee Stage unless the Chair on Committee Stage allows us leniency and we have managed that. It is difficult for us. When the Minister of State reports back to the Tánaiste, I ask him to reflect that the Convention on the Constitution made a proposal to address that aspect in the Constitution which prevents me and others in the House from putting together amendments that are likely to be a charge on the Exchequer or on the people.

Ultimately, I cannot force the Government to accept my amendments. I can table all the amendments I want, be they good, bad or indifferent, but it is up to the Government to argue against them or, if they are off the wall, ridicule them. However, if I table positive amendments, as I have done in the past, they should be taken on board or, at least, amended. What is happening makes the Opposition's job of recommending changes difficult. It probably makes the job of the Minister of State difficult because he does not get to answer the key concerns we raise unless the Chairman allows a loose debate on them on Committee Stage.

I will not oppose this legislation but I believe it is a missed opportunity. I ask that the Minister for Social Protection come to the House at the earliest opportunity before July to explain what has been done to address the substantial shortfall for working parents who will be affected by the change to the one-parent family payment that comes into effect this year. I refer in particular to those who are stuck working for five days per week but not working 19 hours, which would qualify them for family income supplement, for instance, and also to those in education who are affected by how the legislation is now framed. It means they will have substantially less money. The amount of money is substantial when one has very little.

See this speech in context