David Norris (Independent)

I am interested in the language employed — one-parent family — and I wonder if the Minister could comment on that because the people in the many organisations that represent this kind of family unit describe themselves as lone parents. I do not think it is biologically possible to have a one-parent family. There have to be two parents. Is there some reason for using the phrase "one-parent family"? I do not want to be tendentious but perhaps that could be amended to "lone parent".

I hesitate to disagree with my colleague, Senator Paschal Mooney, but while the majority may well be women, the men who take on this responsibility are equally deserving of the praise of society. I would not like to go back to the day when we all accepted that a woman's place was in the home, although I am sure that was not what Senator Mooney intended.

Many of the arguments have been rehearsed by my colleagues, including Senator Ó Clochartaigh, about the greater impact of this measure on lone parent families in terms of driving them towards poverty. There is something mean about the application of it to gross weekly earnings in particular because that means the full total is taken into account, regardless of all the various taxes and impositions already extracted. It is unfair on somebody who has the initiative to go out and seek work, and invariably it is part-time work they get. It is an indication of how low the levels are already if part-time work earnings can be taken into account. The Minister might examine whether that should be gross or net weekly earnings. I would prefer if it was net of all extractions because if the Minister takes the gross earnings into account in these situations where budgets are carefully balanced, it is as if she is assuming that the recipient is getting the full amount when they are not. I ask that that amelioration be made. I know this House cannot do anything that would impose a charge on the Exchequer but there is something particularly mean about taking gross weekly earnings into account.

I may be misinterpreting this section, and the Minister might comment on it, but section 7(1)(c) appears to be part of her defence strategy in the sense that she has ameliorated the position somewhat by this subsection in that it helps to reduce the grosser impacts of it. If this was part of the Minister's battle, and if it was successful, the record of the House should show some degree of commendation to her on achieving that.