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

Cuirim fáilte roimh an mBille seo. Tréaslaím leis an Aire agus leis an Teachta Kerrane in éineacht leis na hoifigigh sa Roinn. Is reachtaíocht fhíorthábhachtach é seo a dhéanfaidh an-difríocht do thuismitheoirí aonair agus do dhaoine atá ag comhoibriú ó thaobh tuismitheoireachta. Ní raibh na forálacha faoi mar a bhí cóir. Níor thóg siad cuntas i gceart gur don chaiteachas a bhaineann leis na leanaí atá á thógáil aige nó aici atá san airgead atá á thabhairt don tuismitheoir aonair seachas ioncam breise.

I welcome this important Bill and that child maintenance payments will no longer be assessed as means. This is a long overdue measure. I also welcome the discontinuation of the liable relative provision. I commend the Minister and her officials on their important work on the legislation. I commend Deputy Kerrane in particular. This has been a passion of hers for many years. In the previous Dáil term, I recall the Deputy working with Deputy Brady. I also acknowledge Deputy Brady's work on this. Deputy Kerrane has been working on this for years now. She has driven it passionately in our party and has made it a social welfare priority for Sinn Féin. I would like to think her work has helped to push the Department and Minister to move on the issue. I am sure the Minister was sympathetic in any event, but I think the emphasis that has been placed on the matter has been very welcome. Away from the glare of the media, this place sometimes works okay. Sometimes the Opposition and Government can find agreement and co-operate. I acknowledge that as well.

We have sought this change for many years. It is important to note that the removal of these provisions does not replace or supersede the primary responsibility of parents to maintain their children. That is crucially important. The payment of maintenance by the non-custodial parent is not just a recognition payment but an obligation. The Minister and I both know that children are expensive. This is not an additional income by any manner or means. Often, it will not come close to meeting the costs that children accrue. They are obviously worth every penny but there is no doubt that there is a significant associated cost.

There is no doubt in my mind that there is an obligation on the parent. Many people are co-parenting and fulfilling that obligation perfectly well and that needs to be acknowledged. This legislation is to ensure that in circumstances where that is not happening, the other parent does not lose out significantly. They are already single parents. It is worth acknowledging that single parent families are at enormous risk of poverty relative to the rest of the population and these families are overwhelmingly, albeit not exclusively, headed by single mothers. This obligation and expectation need to remain in place. That is my expectation and I hope it remains an expectation of the Department. That ties in well with the point about the need for a child maintenance service.

Tuigim go bhfuil an tAire tar éis a rá gur fhreagracht don Aire Dlí agus Cirt é sin. Tá sé sin ceart ach táimid ag déanamh díospóireachta ar reachtaíocht agus moladh a bhfuil an Rialtas ina iomláine freagrach astu mar aonad. Cé go raibh tromlach i bhfabhar, tá sé tábhachtach a rá nach raibh gach duine i bhfabhar. Is moladh ceart é agus déanann sé ciall. Coimeádfaidh sé tuismitheoirí amuigh ó na cúirteanna nuair nach gá dóibh dul ann. Ba chóir go mbeadh sé sin mar thosaíocht againn i gcónaí.

I note that the establishment of a child maintenance service is the responsibility of the Minister for Justice. When debating a Bill, however, there is no harm in acknowledging the responsibility of the whole of the Government. The Government can discuss these issues, which brings me to another point, one I will raise in a moment, related to the Minister for housing. This is a relevant topic for discussion. I appreciate the Minister's point that there was a majority but not unanimous opinion on this matter. Notwithstanding that, establishing such a service is a good idea. Sinn Féin would do so in government and this Government should do it. Our objective with regard to maintenance and everything else related to the family should be, where possible, to keep these issues out of the courts and legal system. The less cost, the fewer causes for friction and the fewer adversarial situations, the better.

This applies in other areas as well. It is a source of huge regret to me that in recent years I have come across local authorities where previously an affidavit was adequate to demonstrate that a single parent was living alone. Now, increasingly, I am seeing local authorities asking lone parents to go to court. That is wrong and gives rise to unnecessary cost.

It brings the adversarial situation into play. The way this issue has been left, with no child maintenance service, also increases the possibility for adversarial situations and friction. That is not always the case but it is a greater possibility.

The previous system was inefficient in obtaining contributions from non-custodial parents. While this is to be changed, ending this policy alone will not meet families' needs. We need to see the establishment of a statutory child maintenance service. As Deputy Kerrane has demonstrated, that does not need to be expensive and it is something we have consistently provided for in our alternative budget. Such a service would take the responsibility for the pursuit of child maintenance off the shoulders of lone parents and, importantly, out of the courts. That is an important move. It is not fair to force parents through the courts system. In Britain and the North, the move to a child maintenance service has been largely positive and it removes the adversarial approach. It also ensures that the child is central to the decision on child maintenance to be paid and has the necessary enforcement powers to ensure it is paid.

I urge the Minister to keep this matter on the agenda and continue to discuss it with the Minister, Deputy McEntee. There may not have been unanimity but plenty of recommendations from the committee have been enforced without them having unanimous support. A majority should be adequate. The model that Sinn Féin proposes draws on extensive work that an Teachta Kerrane, Deputy Brady and I, along with others, have done on the issues. It echoes calls from other organisations, including SPARK, One Family Ireland, Treoir and a variety of others. We want to take child maintenance out of the courts and instead see a statutory agency step in when it comes to the arrangement, calculation and payment of child maintenance, rather than leaving it up to the lone parent alone. We know that child maintenance, where paid, can play a key role in reducing child poverty. That is one reason having a robust system in place is so important. I urge the Minister to examine our proposals carefully.

As the Minister and Deputy Kerrane acknowledged, one-parent families remain at a significantly greater risk of poverty than the general population. That has been the case for many years. While actions have been taken to address that, much more needs to be done. In the Sinn Féin alternative budget for 2024, we provided for a number of specific measures that would apply to one-parent families and tackle this issue. They include increasing the age limit for one-parent family payment to 12 years; beginning the process of increasing the age limit of the jobseeker's transitional payment to 18 years, starting with an increase by one year up to 15 years; establishing a child maintenance service; and increases in the qualified child payment for all children. The Government did not take action on these measures.

It is wrong that one-parent families lose the one-parent family payment when their child reaches seven years of age. That was one of the worst cuts of the recessionary era and it has not been addressed. I have spoken to people who are getting the one-parent family and working the hours that allows them to get the working family payment. All of a sudden, they no longer get that payment and lose a significant amount of income because their child turns seven. That is a serious cliff edge for those parents and amounts to a loss of a significant amount of money on a monthly basis. That puts them at a much greater risk of poverty. These are parents who are working. That, too, should be acknowledged because that cliff edge is wrong. Similarly, the cliff edge at 14 years of age is a problem. More needs to be done in that area and we need to continue to discuss it. People will talk about the jobseeker's transitional payment people can get when their child reaches seven years of age, which is an equivalent rate, but they cannot get the working family payment if they go on the jobseeker's transitional payment. That is a serious flaw.

Lone parents deserve better. The costs of raising a child - the cost of clothing, food, childcare and back-to-school costs, among others - are constantly increasing. A single parent who is renting will not have much left after the rent is paid. The cost of raising a child in Ireland is skyrocketing. I know this goes beyond the Minister's Department and needs cross-departmental consideration. As I stated, in advance of the budget the Children's Rights Alliance proposed what it considered to be the minimum increase for a qualified child. The budget measure outlined did not meet that minimum. The alliance called for an increase of €5 for those aged under 12 and €10 for those aged over 12, whereas a €4 increase was introduced across the board. Child benefit has not increased since 2016 and it is still below 2008 levels. The payment has lost much of its impact in supporting families. I urge the Government to listen to and implement proposals brought forward by Sinn Féin, as it has thankfully done with this Bill. I welcome that action has been taken but much more is needed to support one-parent families.

I come to the issue of housing, and again this is not the Minister's responsibility. There is a comparison that can be drawn fairly and it needs to be examined. I urge the Minister to bring it to her colleagues at Cabinet, particularly the Minister for housing. For the purposes of social housing need assessment, child maintenance is still considered as income by most local authorities. Similarly, for the purposes of the housing assistance payment, HAP, when the differential rent that the HAP tenant has to pay to the local authority is being calculated, child maintenance is considered an income. We have agreed in principle that child maintenance is not an additional income or a recognition payment. It is a payment to defray the considerable costs of raising a child. Surely the same principle should apply with HAP and social housing. I urge the Minister to raise this issue at Cabinet and have it considered. I know she cannot act on this alone but as part of Government, this is an issue that can be addressed.

The same principle applies. This is not an additional income; it is simply to defray, often only partially, the cost of raising children. In some instances, that rules people out and puts their income over the limit for social housing, thereby disqualifying them. That is a source of serious regret and something we should avoid. As we know, credit time for social housing is money in the bank for families so it is devastating for families when this happens. It does not put the interests of the child first when a family potentially misses out on the opportunity to have a secure home and a roof over their head due to the child maintenance payment. That is not right and I urge the Government to look at it.

That is the height of it. I commend the Minister and her Department on bringing forward this useful Bill. It is a good piece of work and while there is more to be done, it is very welcome. I acknowledge, in particular, the work that Deputies Kerrane and Brady have done over several years in highlighting this issue. This is a good day for lone parents but there is much more to be done.

See this speech in context