Jillian van Turnhout (Independent)

I welcome the Minister of State to the House. I acknowledge the helpfulness and professionalism of civil servants in the Department of Social Protection in the lead-up to this debate. I rise to speak with an extremely heavy heart and a sense of foreboding. Together with my colleague, Senator Zappone, I will be trying to persuade the Minister and Minister of State that section 4 should be reconsidered and should not be part of the Bill.

I know the motion for earlier signature is tabled for Monday. There is no motion to recall the Dáil so I wonder why I rise to make this point. Is this scrutiny at its best, when we do not have an opportunity to change the legislation? I regret that there is no intention to change the legislation.

I want to flag my concerns on the State contributory pension. I recognise it is only one element in this Bill, but I have received conflicting information about the effect of the increased number of voluntary PRSI contributions voluntary contributors must pay to be entitled to a full contributory State pension. I will be looking for additional information and clarification so that we can iron this out on Committee Stage. There needs to be a more proactive approach on the part of the Minister to provide public information about these changes. There is confusion among older people. It would be useful to clarify matters during this debate.

I wish to focus on the one-parent family payment. I have made it clear since the publication of the Bill and the announcement in the Budget Statement that I will oppose section 4. I recognise the acknowledgement by the Minister that lone parents should not lose the one-parent payment when the youngest child reaches seven years unless a comprehensive system of Scandinavian style child care is in place. For far too many years our concept of child care provision looked at the status of the parent and was focused on getting mothers into the workplace. The introduction of the free preschool year changed the focus, because it is about providing care for children regardless of the status of the parent and the financial circumstances of the family. This means child care is provided equally to all children, which is a good way to start. The proposal in the Bill will be a return to the old style of child care provision. I cannot believe we are debating a measure that is so regressive, counter-productive and detrimental to the well-being of children of lone parents. The Minister for Social Protection, Deputy Joan Burton, noted yesterday's ESRI report. I will read the first line of Paul Cullen's article in The Irish Times today: "Children are bearing the brunt of the recession, with close to a third affected by some form of deprivation, according to a new report."

In the lead-in to this debate, I have been appalled by some of the arguments on lone parents, especially that people choose to be lone parents. At the end of 2011, 90,000 people were in receipt of the one-parent family payment. More than 90,000 people, the majority women, did not choose to belong to a family unit group most at risk of poverty in society. The contention is not only deeply insulting to those who have become lone parents, having left dysfunctional and unhealthy relationships or who have been deserted by their partners or who have been bereaved, it is also dangerous because it feeds into a notion that lone parents are a legitimate or worthy target of welfare cuts. It incorrectly focuses the debate on the adult, when it is the impact on the estimated 149,000 children of lone parents that is of critical concern.

Charles Dickens said:

It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness,

This expresses how I feel this week. We have had a really excellent week for the Children's Rights Alliance. The ending of the detention of children in St Patrick's Institution will start next Tuesday. The heads of a Bill have been produced on Children First, and there is legislation on the withholding of information on crimes against children. We have made great strides and the rhetoric of the past has been overturned. Despite this, we are looking at an amendment to the Social Welfare and Pensions Bill that has the potential to deny children their most basic needs, including food, clothing and shelter. One-parent families are the unit group in society that are most at risk of poverty. Children in such families are poorer than other children. This is not speculation; it is a fact. We have been told this repeatedly by the OECD, the CSO, the ESRI and several NGOs working directly with children.

When I spoke last December opposing the cuts in child benefit, I spoke at length about the cumulative impact of successive cuts in successive budgets on vulnerable families. I stressed that any hardship felt within a family is most acutely felt by children. The concerns I raised then were not new, they were the concerns that were repeatedly raised in the context of budgetary measures, not only domestically but also by international observers. The United Nations independent expert on the question of human rights and extreme poverty, Ms Magdalena Sepúlveda, visited Ireland in January 2011 and in the course of her statement said:

Children continue to be the group most at risk of poverty in Ireland, with families – in particular single parent families – struggling to ensure food, appropriate housing, heating and decent winter clothing. The substantial cuts in child payments in recent budgets are of particular concern as they can exacerbate the situation of children and lead to an increase in child poverty rates, which are already worryingly high. This would represent a major step backward for children's rights in Ireland.

I find it really difficult to reconcile these policy decisions. Why not remove section 4 and bring it back when we are ready to put in place the supports outlined by the Minister? We all want better outcomes for lone parents. Why such haste?