John Curran (Dublin Mid West, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I have only a few concluding remarks. In my opening remarks I acknowledged the contribution of the witnesses to the committee and I wish to reiterate that. Those people who attended, made opening written presentations and answered questions, in fairly specific detail, informed the report that is in front of us. It is not an academic report, it was formulated by real life input. That is very important.

I also acknowledge that the report would not be the report it is without the co-operation of all members of the joint committee, both those from this House and the Upper House. This was not a majority report, it was a unanimous report from all members of the committee. We had considerable evidence in front of us. There was considerable drafting and redrafting in terms of recommendations. The recommendations and thoughts of every person on the committee were considered, irrespective of whether he or she was a member of a party or not. Everybody on the committee agreed with the final report.

In making my opening remarks I was conscious that the recommendations and findings were those of the committee, that they were not my own personal views and it was very important to accurately reflect and summarise the work of the committee given the considerable effort that went into it. The report is all the stronger because of the quality and input of the witnesses, including written presentations, and the co-operation and work of members. It was not just a case of members turning up for a short meeting, there was much drafting and redrafting to produce the report. I acknowledge and recognise the work members of the committee put into it.

I wish to refer to one or two brief points that came up during the course of the debate. Although I did not mention it in my opening remarks the additional cost of teenagers was brought to the attention of the Minister. We recognise that in other areas, for example, the way we approach the back-to-school clothing and footwear allowance. A distinction is made between primary schoolchildren and older children. It is important to recognise that in real life teenagers are more expensive and they need subscriptions for football, designer tracksuits or whatever else. We have all had the experience of living with teenagers and while they progress beyond that stage we all know teenagers are more expensive and we must be cognisant of that. We recognise it in certain areas and we must demonstrate a differential approach to older children in future budgets in terms of a different or additional payment in recognition of the additional costs.

I welcome the Minister's comments on the issues I raised on maintenance. I welcome the fact that women who are in awkward or abusive relationships do not have to go through the same process. However, it is necessary to update the website for anybody who goes to the welfare site and looks at the list of requirements. I only looked at it today and it is concerning if people feel they have to go through that process. More important regarding maintenance, it should be taken away altogether and it should be a stand-alone issue that lone parents, who are predominantly female, get a payment and do not have to worry about maintenance. The State should play a role in that regard.

Certainly, none of the people I see wants to have to deal with a former partner as the relationship is over. In many cases, they do not know where their former partner is or do not want to track him down, etc. It is welcome that the Minister has committed to providing a paper on the issue in the near future. I encourage her to submit it to the joint committee. She should give us a look at it at an early stage to try to deal with this issue in a meaningful way. That would have a positive impact.

The Minister referred to how getting people back into work was the solution. I do not disagree, but I am keen to make the point that the real challenge is presented by the quality of work. I did not get an opportunity to speak in the debate last night on the employment Bill which deals with the issues of banded hours, security and so on. The same applies to lone parents. It is important that the quality of work available to them affords them the lifestyle that goes with moving out of poverty.

We need to consider our analysis for the future. It is not good enough to say people are in work or employment. We need a qualitative analysis to assess what impact employment is having. Is it having the desired beneficial positive impact the Minister intended? That is not a criticism, but if we shift in the direction of people moving into employment which is seen as the solution, there is no use in it being a subsidy. It needs to be real and meaningful. It needs to have the desired outcome for them for which we are all striving. It is important to ensure there will be a continuous analysis of the level and type of employment available.

The joint committee's report was published in June last year to give the Minister an opportunity to consider its findings. The idea was that its timing would have an impact in how the budget might be formulated. The report this year will be equally relevant. The numbers of lone parent families may change and the numbers living in deprivation and poverty will go up and down somewhat, but the broad issues addressed and the broad solutions suggested will be as relevant in the compilation of the budget for next year. I acknowledge that incremental progress has been made, but more work remains to be done. If the Minister is before the joint committee in advance of the preparation of the budget for next year, I appeal to her to revisit this report. While the numbers may be somewhat out of date when she enters the budgetary process, the report will still be a roadmap she should follow.

I thank everyone for his or her contribution.

See this speech in context