Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South Central, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I am Sinn Féin spokesperson on children and youth affairs. In preparing for the budget and our alternative, the issue of child care, which has been discussed substantially since then, was a big focus. A substantial amount of children's interests and welfare issues come under the responsibility of the Department of Social Protection as well. The investment in subsidising child care in a universal and targeted way was welcome, albeit that we would have liked to have seen more for child care workers. This Government's efforts to tackle child poverty in this budget and Social Welfare Bill fall substantially short. A number of organisations, including Barnardos, Early Childhood Ireland and the ISPCC, would have lobbied on a number of issues that urgently need to be tackled to reduce child poverty. I will touch on them in the course of my contribution. The issues relate to child benefit, the one-parent family payment, some of the back to school costs and family income supplement.

There is a failure to recognise that a combination of interventions across all those various payments as well as interventions in child care would have made a very significant difference to child poverty. I was at a conference on Monday on the Young Knocknaheeny programme, which is an excellent area-based poverty project. It was said that Irish child poverty remains among the highest among the wealthier end of OECD countries. I want to touch first of all on single parents. Every measure or report always finds that single parent families, which, more often than not, are led by females, are among the most disadvantaged, poorest and marginalised in our society. It is well documented that the lone parent reforms, which are essentially cuts, by the previous Government had the perverse effect of reducing household income and were regressive. It has been borne out by a number of organisations. The Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission has recommended that the State reverse these cuts. At the time it took effect, a number of families were affected but a number of specific categories of recipients saw huge reductions in their payments. I back the campaign supported by Irish Single Parents Fight Back and others that argues that seven years of age is too low to be the cut-off age. It has been very difficult for many one-parent families to absorb that change. The cost of a child does not reduce after the age of seven. In many ways, it increases when it comes to things like education. The failure to revisit that is serious. The issue needs to be revisited next year because this is a very marginalised category of people and it would make a very substantial difference and help a lot of people out of very difficult situations and poverty.

A related issue that many single parents face is the issue of maintenance. It was reported recently that the Department has been issuing letters to the liable relative - the person who is supposed to making maintenance payments - informing them that they are no longer obliged to pay maintenance once the child reaches the age of seven. At the same time, the Department is telling lone parents that if they do not seek maintenance, they will receive financial sanctions and it will be taken into account in means testing and various others measures relating to the kind of benefits and entitlements they are entitled to. This was a very dangerous and regrettable action by the Department that is putting a lot of pressure on a category of people who are already under severe pressure and in very difficult situations. It is something the Department needs to resolve. Clearly, those liable relatives have responsibilities and the Department should be active in ensuring that they step up to those responsibilities, should not put all the obligation on the parent who is doing their best to raise their child and should not take a disadvantageous or prejudicial view or too harsh a view of parents who have liable relatives who have not been paying maintenance because, ultimately, that is not their fault and they cannot do anything to control it.

The issue of child care relates to the so-called reforms to the one-parent family payment. It was done in the context of the promise of Scandinavian-style child care. By the time we have a Scandinavian-style child care system, we will have had many years of very regressive cuts and it does not appear as if they are going to be reversed any time soon. In that context of the discussion around child care, and there were welcome moves in that regard, parents who stay at home raised concerns about the fact it was becoming substantially more difficult for them to raise their children, that they were not receiving any assistance and that it was becoming financially unsustainable for them.

In that context, far more should have been done on maternity benefit. The Bill has welcome steps on paternity benefit, but we need to go much further than that. While the €5 increase in maternity benefit is welcome, in my experience people are considerably short at that rate. Many parents find it very difficult to stay at home at that rate and feel obliged to work much sooner than they would otherwise. We would have advocated a much more substantial increase of about €40 and an extension of two weeks because we need to be bridging that gap. While paternity benefit and paternity leave are finally being addressed, which is positive, we need to work towards having a set amount for both parents with flexibility to allow parents to take it between them as and when it suits them.

I wish to speak about the under 26s. The Government has continued a discrimination that has been going on for six or seven years between jobseekers up to 25 and older than 25. It is questionable as to whether it is permissible under the Equal Status Act - I do not believe anyone has ever taken a case on it. Certainly, morally there is no justification for it. The €2.70 increase for the under 25s would scarcely buy a young person a cup of coffee a week.

The discrimination ultimately forces more and more young people back on their families. That has been a real feature of austerity. We see it with housing, social protection, fees and all sorts of educational costs. Parents have already absorbed a burden in their own way through cuts and increased taxes. The increased pressure on their children is being transferred to them, with children having to move home and rely on their parents for assistance. However, this is just not an option for many young people under 26, who may not have that relationship with their parents. They find it very difficult to try to manage their lives, and pay for their food, clothes and other bills out of a very modest - inadequate - jobseeker's allowance that is also based on a discriminatory principle.

See this speech in context