Katherine Zappone (Independent) | Oireachtas source

This has been a very good debate. I thank the Tánaiste for her passionate and systematic outline of what she is doing and why she is doing it. I am also grateful to the Senators who spoke during the debate. We have demonstrated our common passion and respect for single parents. It is great to hear that coming from the Seanad. We accept that the reforms initiated by the Government are based on passion and respect for single parents. Our criticisms of some of those policies and our recommendations for change are also based on that. We do not think the Government has got it right yet. It has moved back from some of the changes it initiated. We think the Government needs to move back from more of them.

Government Senators, in particular, put forward views during the debate about some of the things the Government is doing, but unfortunately those things do not really bridge the gaps we have identified. They are not putting food on the table or fuel in the tank. They are not ensuring quality child care is accessible. We will continue to argue that more needs to be done, particularly with regard to raising the rationale that underlies much of the policy. Many of us spoke about the importance of education and employment in terms of enabling people to get out of poverty. We mentioned the failure to provide for the child care that needs to be in place in order to support that. We will continue to say there is a need not only for education and jobs, but also for an acknowledgement that parental responsibility of care in a one-parent family is equivalent to that in a two-parent family. We do not believe lone parents should be compelled to go into full-time work after their youngest child has reached the age of 14, particularly in the absence of adequate and affordable quality child care supports. This is an example of where current Government policy is neither sufficient nor acceptable.

I suppose we question some of the policies that are currently in place and have not been changed. While we acknowledge the decision to establish the jobseeker's allowance transition payment in recognition of the care duties of those parenting alone whose children are between the ages of seven and 13, we believe the care duties of those parenting alone whose children are aged 14 and over are not recognised. This means the need and ability of each parent to balance care and work or education, and his or her freedom to make appropriate parenting choices, particularly in one-parent families, is not properly recognised. It is for that reason that we believe there is no equality of family status in this regard. We accept that the jobseeker's allowance transition payment has been introduced, but it is important to remember that the income disregard which was put in place within that structure to facilitate additional child care costs is still lower than that which applies under the one-parent family payment. Some families will lose income as a result.

We have based many of our arguments on the figures that we have drawn from our research. Those figures suggest that the lone parents who are losing out financially as a result of the way these changes are operating do not represent a small minority. This is affecting more than a small minority, particularly because we still do not have enough affordable and accessible child care arrangements for the parents of one-parent families. We accept and welcome that provision has been made for access to Intreo and to personal case officers, but we do not think there is any justification for cutting the income of working lone parents to pay for this. They already constitute the poorest group. There is less of a financial incentive for a lone parent to work because of child care costs. The only people who can avail of the back to work family dividend are those who can get their employers to agree to guaranteed contracts. Many lone parents work in the retail industry and are therefore caught in a trap of lower hours. We have already spoken about after-school places. Many speakers indicated that while they welcome the establishment of such initiatives, there has been poor take-up in some cases because they were not designed around parents' needs.

I would like to speak about the issue of education with specific reference to parents staying in full-time higher education. While there has been a move back from some of the changes that were made, it should be noted that those single parents who moved to the back to education allowance, as distinct from the jobseeker's allowance transition payment, will not get a maintenance grant. We are concerned that access to education, especially higher education, for lone parents in the future may not be guaranteed for one-parent families. An active inclusion approach is welcome. We are welcoming that. However, we think that a failure to recognise adequately the responsibility of care for one-parent families is continuing to underlie all of the Government's policies. It is being recognised in words, but not necessarily in terms of the actions that are required to acknowledge the caring responsibility of one-parent families. That is not happening yet. For example, we do not understand why it has been decided that 14 is the appropriate age at which payment transition should happen. We have heard the argument that the more time a single parent spends in part-time work, the less time it might take him or her to move out of poverty. We do not feel that the other side of our responsibility to one-parent families, in relation to their care, has been sufficiently acknowledged.

I have reviewed the Government amendment carefully but I have not seen any statement that there will be any kind of review of policies. Our motion concluded by calling on the Government to "engage in a comprehensive review" in light of the concerns we have. I note and welcome the reference in the Tánaiste's speech to two reviews that will be going on. The first review, to be carried out by Dr. Michelle Millar, will identify best practice in how to assist lone parents to improve their access to education and employment - we believe housing should also be included in this context - to ensure they have greater opportunities for their families. It seems that a second review will stem from her request to the Labour Market Council to specifically examine how employers can assist lone parents to increase their hours, thereby enabling them to qualify for family income supplement. My colleague with whom I have consulted and I share the hope that these two significant reviews will include a questioning of some of the fundamental assumptions which, as we have tried to point out, have been underlying the policies that have been adopted to date. Indeed, some of the changes brought about by this Government may to a certain extent have represented an acceptance of the incorrectness of those assumptions.

I have decided that I will not push this to a vote. I assume the Government will agree that we can feed into those reviews and into the work of the joint committee, which has been mentioned by Senator Bacik and which I acknowledged in my earlier remarks, some of the more extensive recommendations that have come from working with lone parents and their families, particularly at the civic forum. This has been a fine debate. I am grateful and delighted to hear that there is a commitment to common respect for one-parent families, particularly single parents who have ambitions to earn, care and learn. As I said at the outset, this is necessary to enable them to participate in, and find their place in, the building of the Ireland that all the rest of us hope to have an opportunity to build.