Paul McAuliffe (Dublin North West, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

When I saw the attendance I suspected my slot would come earlier so I took the opportunity to avoid the debate falling.

I mention the phrase "success can have many mothers and fathers". It is not often I get the opportunity to congratulate both the Government and Opposition on good examples of a practical and pragmatic issue being brought forward, listened to in the Department and supported by organisations such as SPARK, One Family and so on. The provisions in the Bill that relate to families and lone parents are pragmatic and practical.

In the week the House voted to extend the constitutional definition of a family to families other than the traditional marital unit, it is important to say that measures like this are examples of how Ireland has changed over recent decades. If the House is making similar changes to social welfare legislation or any other form of legislation, it is time the Constitution caught up with that principle. I say to the many one-parent families that the Government is introducing these measures and a constitutional protection for the family and the definition of the family gives the control in the Constitution to that principle and protects against any future Government deviating from such policies.

On the provisions, I particularly welcome the concept that maintenance is not disposable income that can be compared with any other form of income. That is important. The previous speakers made a valid point on its use in the calculation of differential rent. That is a matter on which the housing committee could do some work and submit it to the Minister for housing. I will commit to doing that as the Leas-Chathaoirleach of that committee.

On the issue of the liable parent, elements of this are about control. When relationships break down there can often be issues of control. In an abusive relationship, engagement in the court system on issues of custody and maintenance can be used to exert control.

What the Minister has done here, while being a very pragmatic step in regard to social welfare administration, also removes an opportunity for adverse control to be used in a relationship that is abusive and I especially welcome that. It also removes an element of judgment. At the core of a provision like this is an element of judgment about lone parents and so on and that is a sentiment that has long disappeared and it is right to remove it. The last point is that it is a very good example of the State quality-controlling the legislation we pass and looking at the numbers, which speak for themselves. This is not working as a provision and therefore it is not appropriate that we probably spend more money administering the system than it brings in. For all those reasons I commend the Minister and the Opposition on advocating this position, which I support.

On the provisions concerning the temporary protection extended to people from Ukraine, this is again a pragmatic decision. When the war occurred we did not know how long it would be. There was a very generous, open response reflecting our wish to support those Ukrainian people and to do everything we could and we continue to do that. However, as the war has gone on, we have to put this both on a sustainable footing and on a footing equivalent to our European partners. We are in a Single Market, have freedom of movement within the Continent and it is wise for us to have a similar provision for people who are coming from Ukraine. I commend the Minister and Government on making that decision. As we are doing with other provisions, we need to keep a watchful eye on it. As we need to ensure nobody who is vulnerable finds him or herself in a position, because of transition arrangements and so on, where that person is unable to care for and look after him or herself, we should continue to keep a close eye on it. These are the right provisions and I commend the Minister on them.

See this speech in context