Labhrás Ó Murchú (Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister of State. It is evident in any discussion we have today about any change that there are two issues involved. One is that because we do not have the money to do what we would like to do, how can that money be best used, while the other is how we can improve the lot of people. This is what is important because at the end of the day we have to find a balance between those two positions. Any person who is genuinely involved in this debate will have to start it in that way.

Most of us live at the coalface when it comes to single parent families. We all know the challenges for such families and also for those parents. It is not easy at any stage. There is a major responsibility on them. At times we feel exceptionally inspired by those people. Clearly, the income to the house has been eroded over a period, putting significant stress on those households, including the children. It was difficult enough when things were reasonably good but then families find themselves in a competitive situation. Children have to go out and meet their own peer groups and those who are better off in life as against those who now find themselves exceptionally distressed. It is no secret that the stress often causes terrible depression for families that extends from the parent to the children. The children who should be protected, nourished, cultivated and helped have an added challenge. We often see the results of this in society. One wonders whether we are making savings in the long run by eroding family income and adding those extra pressures when we see what comes out at the other end and the expenditure which is often involved in looking after the traumatic cases.In addition, the principle of what is work and what it means to be in employment is important. For a while we said that a parent at home rearing children had a passive and not an active life, but that is not true. I cannot think of any more important work than looking after children, particularly in the case of a lone parent, and what a lone parent does is definitely work. A lone parent has more to do than a couple, although a couple also has difficulties. It is work which is also beneficial to society and to the State coffers because parents who stay at home ensure responsibility does not pass on to an agency of the State, which would have to pay an amount way above the money involved in what a parent does.

We often misrepresent the carer in this matter. All of us have seen the work of carers and what they have to do is absolutely mind-boggling. We have seen television programmes about their work and it is very deflating to see what a carer in a household has to do for 24 hours a day. It is not as simple as counting out tablets in that very often these people give up their own lives to look after somebody in the household. I speak in generalities because sometimes the generalities are lost in the specifics.

The second thing I have noticed in cases that have come to public attention and have been shown on television is how magnanimous these people are. The manner in which they accept their responsibilities and duties is inspiring. I often try to imagine how I would be if I found myself in that position. I wonder if I would have the tenacity those people display. We have to make their lives as easy as possible.

The idea of easing a single woman or single man back into employment is laudable in itself but we also have to be very careful to consider what will happen to children. The idea of a seven-year cut-off point for a child will not convince many of us as not much changes between the ages of six and seven, or even eight for that matter. However, that is the yardstick we are using so it is important to ask if it is practicable and if it will continue to ensure children are looked after. Even if a single parent is eased back into employment, many extra costs come back onto the household for numerous reasons, because children do not have their parent for X number of hours every day.

I am involved in a centre in Cashel where we have had the benefit of community employment. In better days when they were able to maximise their income, single parents came in and I could see what it meant to them. It obviously gave them a sense of worth but, above all, it gave them a certain amount of ease as it got them away from the pressures in the home. A lot of that has changed and I wonder if society will be the loser in the long-term.

The reason we must consider and debate legislation like this is because the money which used to be there is no longer there. Therefore, we must decide what we prioritise. It would be very easy if we opposed every debate on economic issues just for the sake of it, but that is not what I am doing. I am talking about what the priorities are and which people should be privileged when money is being expended. I say that lone parents and children, who are more vulnerable than in normal circumstances, should be the priority and should have privilege but others should also get priority and privilege.

I will not open the debate now but there is a proposal to give free GP care for those under the age of six, even if the parents are millionaires. I do not take a position on that particular case but we need to take care on where the priority should be.