David Norris (Independent) | Oireachtas source

In the absence of that, it is insupportable that the Government should attack and impose cuts on the most vulnerable and the weakest members of society. Another communication states:

For me personally, as a working lp [lone parent], these cuts have cost me €140pw ...

How many of us would like to be slapped with a cut of €140 a week if we were lone parents trying to put food on the table, educate children and so on? It is disastrous. It continues:

... or approx. €5,600 p.a. calculated on 40 weeks employment. I could now, work for my p.t wage or be €30p.w better off on jobseekers allowance, therefore, I have had to leave my job.

There is an achievement for the Government: somebody who wants to work and has been put out of a job by this measure. It continues:

I suffer from a prolapsed disc and chronic pain and was told by sw [social welfare] and a labour td that a disability payment would be an option. I do not want this. I chose to work. But now I receive more money from the state than before the cuts and I have also been taken out of the tax system. And I am not the only one.

I do not know what has happened to the Labour Party but it looks to me as though some kind of suicidal virus has got into it, if it is introducing this kind of measure in the run-up to a general election. The next communication states:

I am 37 and have one son who is 9. I have worked since I was 16. I have been working part time since my son was born 9 years ago. My job is a Customer Service Agent in Dublin City Council. I have a mortgage on a house I bought 12 years ago. If theses cut go ahead I wont be able to pay my mortgage or keep food on the table.

This is the kind of situation people are facing. It continues:

These cuts are only affecting the working lone parents. How are these cuts suppose to get lone parents back to work when its the working lone parents who are only being penalised?

I cannot take on any more hours because the child care is not there and even if it were then my wages would be entirely paying someone else to raise my child.

That is a potent argument. The last communication states:

I work part time in a local secondary girls school with 700+ students. I am a cleaner and work 2.5 hrs a day and this work can be very physical. As I employed by the B.O.M. [board of management] there is a limited budget for cleaning staff so an increase of hours is not a possibility. Therefore we are let go in June and re employed in August.

There is a period in the summer, therefore, when she is not employed. It further states:

Financially, this can be quite difficult but I know I can look forward to a wage in August. This also affords me the opportunity to be here to care for and supervise my 14 year old daughter during the summer months. How lucky am I?I receive a reduced rate of [allowance] of €175 p.w.

My wages after tax is €179 p.w.

Total €354

These cuts have decimated my income by €142 pw. I will now receive €217 p.w. Jsa.

Next week we will be asked to renew our contracts. I cannot do that. In fact I rang my employer last week to explain my situation and I cried for 3 hrs after that call.

That is a genuine letter.

I will put some facts on the record. First, the 2006 report on which these changes are based show that the average time people spend on lone parent allowance is 5.6 years, with just over 7% of beneficiaries remaining on the payment for more than 15 years. Of those, many may be carers, working or in education. That lone parents are languishing in welfare dependency in any great number is a myth. Second, every single Government report identifies child care as the structural barrier that needs to be addressed, in addition to reforming the one parent family allowance. This is reiterated by TASC, the ESRI, the OECD, One Family, Barnardos and so on. Few countries give children such long school holidays. That has to be paid for.

I will conclude by referring to the Mac Mathúna case, No. 105 of 1997. The Supreme Court specifically said that it was proper for the Government to tailor specific elements of the tax and welfare rules in recognition of the specific barriers that lone parents face compared to two-parent families. The income disregard was introduced with this case in mind, but the specific reduced income disregard is now removed for lone parents with children over seven. The income disregard was designed to facilitate the paying of costs associated with working. The advantage gained through the Mac Mathúna case is being lost, and recognition of specific lone parents' needs is practically gone. I have many more facts, but I rest my case.