Willie O'Dea (Limerick City, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

This is an ongoing problem we are all familiar with because we come up against it on a regular basis in our constituency offices. The first question that arises is whether maintenance should be means tested at all. The statistics for poverty among lone parents and, by extension, their children, are exceptionally high. I understand the latest figure indicates a 51% deprivation rate. If our objective is to target poverty levels, removing the means testing of maintenance would considerably enhance the income of those lone parents and help lift them out of poverty. There are a number of technical problems with the current means test. For example, the same formula is used if the maintenance is being received by a single parent with one child or a single parent with seven or eight children. It is the same means test but surely that cannot be correct.

Where somebody sues, goes through the horrors of the legal system and secures a maintenance order, if the recalcitrant party - the party against whom the order is given - does not pay, the Department still insists on counting this notional income as maintenance, which is unfair and a major deterrent, and people would not want to take the risk. Why finish up collecting a lower rate of lone parent's allowance or none at all while not getting paid maintenance, which the court has ordered to be paid? There is a good deal of work to be done in that regard.

The other anomaly is that with the change in the regulations relating to lone parents and the reduction of the age of the relevant child to seven, the State can step in to help somebody who has a child up to the age of seven. Even though he or she is still a single parent, once the child reaches the age of seven, the benefit payment changes from lone parent allowance to a jobseeker's transitional payment. Once the child is a day over the age of seven, the single parent is on his or her own. It is impossible to justify that. It is simply a lacuna in the legislation.

What we need - and we see this in other jurisdictions so it is not a question of reinventing the wheel - is a statutory agency to pursue this matter. We have discussed that with the Minister and she has pointed out that the Department of Justice and Equality also has to be involved, which I accept. However, I would like her to indicate where we are in respect of these matters when she is responding. This was proposed by way of an amendment on Committee Stage. We thought the three-month period was a little short and undertook to support it on the basis that the three months be changed to six months, and there would be another slight amendment to the proposal, which has been done.

3 o’clock

We would be disposed to support this amendment. I think it calls for a report. It deals with a problem which we will ultimately have to face up to, so the sooner, the better.

See this speech in context