Willie Penrose (Westmeath, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 2: To ask the Minister for Social and Family Affairs the response he has received to his recent discussion paper on proposals for supporting lone parents; if his attention has been drawn to concerns expressed by lone parents groups that some of the proposals contained in his recent discussion paper could create new poverty traps and the particular concerns expressed regarding the proposed withdrawal of the new parental allowance in respect of children over eight; his views on these concerns; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [17552/06]

Séamus Brennan (Dublin South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Government acknowledges that the risk of poverty, especially child poverty, tends to be higher among one parent families, larger families and those faced by long-term unemployment. This is due mainly to the direct costs of rearing children, including child care costs, and the opportunity costs related to the reduced earnings capacity of parents, arising from their care responsibilities. This applies particularly to one-parent families as the lone parent has to be the main breadwinner and carer at the same time.

One of the key tasks in the ending child poverty initiative under Sustaining Progress is to address obstacles to employment for lone parents. The senior officials group on social inclusion was mandated late in 2004 to examine this issue and report back to the Cabinet committee on social inclusion with specific proposals. A sub-group of the senior officials group examined obstacles to employment for lone parent families, with particular emphasis on income supports, employment, education, child care and support programmes and information.

As part of the process, a working group established in my Department reviewed the income support arrangements for lone parents, looking at issues including the contingency basis of the one parent family payment, co-habitation and the fact that the payment can act as a disincentive to the formation of partnerships and discourage joint parenting. As a result of this process, which included consultation with the social partners, I recently launched a major Government discussion paper, Proposals for Supporting Lone Parents, which addresses the social exclusion and risk of poverty faced by many such families and their children.

The report puts forward radical proposals for reform of and improvements to the income support system for all parents on a low income. The report proposes an expanded availability and range of education and training opportunities for lone parents, the extension of the national employment action plan to focus on lone parents, focused provision of child care, improved information services for lone parents and the introduction of a new parental allowance for low income families with young children.

The Government has asked the senior officials group on social inclusion to draw up an implementation plan to progress the non-income recommendations of the discussion paper, including those related to child care, education, training and activation measures. Work on this has already commenced in consultation with the Departments and agencies concerned. As a follow-up to the publication of the discussion paper, I hosted a national consultative forum on 27 April 2006. This forum was attended by social partners, representatives of organisations dealing with lone parents and the unemployed, representatives of Departments and State agencies who will be responsible for the implementation of the proposals in the discussion paper and Members of the Oireachtas.

Additional information not given on the floor of the House.

At the forum, I heard the views of each organisation on the proposals, including their comments on the proposed parental allowance, and invited them to make formal written submissions setting out those views. The Government will listen closely to the views expressed and will give serious consideration to them. As soon as I am satisfied that we have reached conclusions that are sensible, fully workable and clearly thought out, it is my intention to bring forward proposals for legislation during the course of this year.

Willie Penrose (Westmeath, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Labour Party supports the initiation of such discussions and proposals to get them out in the open. Supports must be as simple and understandable as possible and adequate to prevent poverty and ensure individuals' rights to be treated equally. The co-ordination of supports of a consistent standard across Departments must also be pursued. It is important that lone parents would be treated as individuals, not as dependent on someone else. It is also important that the structures and systems would change to facilitate the full and equal participation of those who are parenting alone.

The main issue is access to quality, affordable child care. This is critical for lone parents who wish to participate in the labour market. How will the child care needs of lone parents living in areas where child care is minimal or unavailable be met? Will after-school care be provided and will school holidays be covered? Will assistance be provided for the transport of the children of lone parents to school if lone parents cannot do so because they are participating in education, training or employment? It is only fair that educational and training options and community employment schemes are flexible. A significant number of lone parents participate in CE schemes because they are flexible, locally based, part-time and do not bring about a decrease in income by allowing the preservation of secondary benefits.

I compliment Frances Byrne and Camille Loftus, in particular, for the excellent work they have done in analysing this issue. They have stated that the welfare to work proposal will, ironically, and despite the Minister's best efforts, create a major poverty trap, and they have serious reservations about the practical impact of the proposed reforms. The withdrawal of the parental allowance will create serious poverty traps unless significant reform takes place of other elements of social welfare and the tax system. They stated poverty traps would arise, primarily because of the re-application of the limitation rule when the parental allowance finishes and the more stringent means of assessment applied to unemployment payments. These poverty traps will mostly affect the people who are doing what the Minister and society want of them, namely, going out to work for a living.

Has the Minister studied the submission from OPEN, which illustrates the disparity in income of two lone parents living next to each other, one with a child aged five and one with a child aged eight, both working the same hours on the minimum wage? If they both work 12 hours a week, one person's income will be €74.31 per week or €3,864 per annum lower than the other. If both work 20 hours a week, the income of one person will be €88.93 per week or €4,624 per annum less than the other. This is owing to the involvement of age limitations. The early child care supplement will go at age six. The parental allowance will go at age eight and we will create a major poverty trap. I say this to the Minister, not in a——

Rory O'Hanlon (Cavan-Monaghan, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Deputy should confine himself to a question.

Willie Penrose (Westmeath, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I will summarise this. Is the Minister aware——

Rory O'Hanlon (Cavan-Monaghan, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Six minutes of the time allocated to this question have elapsed and I wish to give the Minister an opportunity to reply.

Willie Penrose (Westmeath, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

——of this and what can he do to ensure this does not happen to defeat the proposals?

Séamus Brennan (Dublin South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We are having a national debate on this matter. We have had a number of fora and public discussions. As he is Chairman of the Joint Committee on Social and Family Affairs, I have listened carefully to what the Deputy said and I will take it on board as part of the discussion we are having. As soon as I am satisfied that we have reached some conclusions that are sensible and workable, then I will go back to Government with proposals for legislation in this area.

If the Deputy is indicating that the present proposals where the cut-off is at age eight could throw up a kind of trap, we will certainly look at that. It was proposed in the recommendations that there would be a five-year lead-in time which would give people a fair length of time to adjust to the new circumstances. People on existing schemes would continue, as it were, until we got to that stage.

The age of eight referred to in the report is not one on which I am necessarily stuck. If there is a better age at which to do it, I would certainly consider that option. The reality is that the current one parent family payment provides long-term income support until a child is 18 or 22. We have all agreed in this House that it is not good for those young people aged 18 to 22 years or their parents for there not to be some State intervention or support. There is general agreement that if we are to tackle child poverty, which is especially prevalent with lone parents, we really must get to grips with that situation and have that interaction with the State at regular intervals as the child grows up.

I agree with the Deputy also that child care is critical to all of this. A total of €500 million has been invested in the equal opportunities child care programme. Almost 41,000 new child care places have been created and by 2011 a total of 91,000 child care places will have been created. We should look at this and the additional funding which has been invested. The Deputy is aware of the new child care supplement of €1,000 per annum. However, I acknowledge that the subject of lone parents is a particular issue because we cannot get them back to work or training or education — if that is their wish — without addressing the child care issue. We are working closely on these initiatives with other Departments which have a direct role in the child care area.

I join Deputy Penrose in complimenting OPEN, and Frances and Camille and all those who work there in the different organisations. I had a very good meeting with them recently. They are quite right to raise issues and I will listen carefully to them because they are in the front line of all these reforms. I am trying not to be political about this but I genuinely appreciate the open mind that has been shown in this House on this issue. If this were not the case or this issue became a political football, we simply would not make any progress. Whatever political advantage would be gained, we would be unfair to many thousands of people. It is important that we try to push on with this as best we can.