Paschal Mooney (Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I was not able to be here for the Second Stage debate for a variety of reasons and I am not sure if my colleague, Senator Ó Murchú, who stood in for me, referred to some notes I had given him. I refer specifically to an article by Victoria While in the Irish Examiner on 26 February 2015 in which she rails against this new policy change and makes the point that "the Government will finish the job it began three years ago when it shunts a further 30,000 to 40,000 lone parents off their One Family Payment because their youngest child has turned seven". She states further: "Seven? Who thinks children can fend for themselves at seven?" She believes, and I am inclined to agree with some element of this, that this initiative is about: "getting single women into the workforce because that's what's good for them. Implied in that idea is the belief that women at home raising children as lone parents are doing nothing."

It is important to put on the record that this is a trend that happened at the start of the Celtic tiger years at the beginning of the millennium where changes were made to tax laws by the then Fianna Fáil Government when Charlie McCreevy was Minister for Finance. It was all about getting more women into the workforce, forcing them in, if necessary, because of an expanding economy. That approach does not seem to have changed. I have often wondered why there does not seem to be the same regard or acknowledgement for women who choose to work in the home and why it is always about getting them out of the home.Why, for example, would a Government not introduce financial incentives for women who choose to stay in the home rather than giving them incentives through tax breaks to go into the workforce?

The Minister of State is quoted as saying that since its introduction in 1997, the one-parent family payment scheme, which provides an important income support to lone parents, has been passive in nature. In response, Ms White stated: ""Passive" is the word used to describe raising a child, or even children, on your own. How could any job be more "active" than raising a kid?" The Minister of State's reference to passive in that sense upset her, and it does raise its own queries.

Ms White went on to state that what makes an absolute nonsense of the idea that the Government's policy is going to assist lone parents "into employment and financial independence" is that its worst insult is to lone parents who are working. She says it is cynical to suggest that the family income supplement restores the loss that will be incurred by lone parents, that it typically restores 60% of the loss, and that is not counting the fuel allowance. She continues in similar vein.

I heard the Tánaiste, Deputy Burton, say this in this House but the quote I will give now is from the Dáil debate in April 2012. She said that the changes would not be made until we had a child care system "similar to what is found in Scandinavian countries". The Minister, Deputy Humphreys, was not a Minister of State when that comment was made but it received widespread coverage at the time. The Tánaiste, Deputy Burton, made it absolutely clear that she would not further erode and reduce the money paid to lone parents under the scheme, as she has now done and which is the purpose of this Bill, until and unless there was, as she put it, a Scandinavian model of child care in place. That has not happened. In fact, the Government has been abysmal in its neglect of the child care sector. That will come back and bite every Government Deputy and Senator at the next general election because people are angry over the high cost of child care, and nothing of any substance or significance has been done to reduce the financial burden on them. In recent years we have heard promises about the extension of the free preschool year. That has now been shoved back onto the next Government.

In the context of what this Bill is about I do not believe it can be interpreted in any way as progressive legislation. It is affecting lone parents particularly badly. It is a continuance of a Government scheme that started years ago, but this Government is forcing women out of the home and into the workforce for economic reasons. There is nothing I can do to change this but I wanted to put it on the record.

I want to quote the Carers Association. The Minister of State might clarify this information because since I got it there have been some changes, so I ask him to forgive me if I am incorrect. The Carers Association, on the subject of section 6, challenge why the back-to-work scheme could not have been extended to include family carers returning to work, allowing them to retain any qualified child increases that had been paid while they were in receipt of carer's allowance and to act as an incentive to assist their transition from caring to work. That is clear. I understand that people who qualify for this scheme will get a weekly payment of up to two years equivalent to any increases for qualified children they were being paid while they were on jobseeker's allowance or a one-parent family payment up to a maximum of four children for the first year in employment, and that half that amount will be paid weekly for the second year. The Carers Association is asking why it could not have been extended to include family carers returning to work, allowing them to retain any qualified child increases that had been paid while they had been receiving carer's allowance. The Minister of State might clarify that for me.