Paul Connaughton Snr (Galway East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 15: To ask the Minister for Social and Family Affairs if he will identify the welfare traps that are associated with the one-parent family payment; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [22888/05]

Michael Ring (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 27: To ask the Minister for Social and Family Affairs his proposals to change the one-parent family payment; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [22887/05]

John Deasy (Waterford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 50: To ask the Minister for Social and Family Affairs the measures he intends to introduce to reverse the situation whereby certain welfare payments prevent the parents of children from living together; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [22893/05]

John Perry (Sligo-Leitrim, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 63: To ask the Minister for Social and Family Affairs if he will list and outline the current data on poverty amongst lone parents here; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [22928/05]

Séamus Brennan (Dublin South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is proposed to take Questions Nos. 15, 27, 50 and 63 together.

The one-parent family payment is designed to provide income support to parents with insufficient means who have to parent alone. This can arise as a result of being widowed, or following separation or divorce, or being unmarried. The scheme in its present form largely reflects the reality that applied up to relatively recently, whereby mothers were mainly the full-time carers, with the father being the sole breadwinner. The main aim of the scheme, therefore, has been to provide income support for mothers parenting alone to replace that which would otherwise be provided by the father in a two-parent family. The scheme provides lone parents with the same option that parents have in two-parent families, of rearing their children themselves.

This reality, however, has been substantially changing in recent years. It is now more common in two-parent families for both parents to work outside the home either on a full-time basis or with one-parent working full-time and the other working part-time. Two-income families are increasingly becoming the norm and international research shows that the risk of poverty for such families is on average less than 4%. One-parent family households are, accordingly, at greater risk of poverty and, if these households are jobless, the risk of poverty is further increased.

The findings of the recent EU survey on income and living conditions, EU SILC, bear out the findings of previous surveys, and of experience in other developed countries also, that poverty rates tend to be higher among larger families and one-parent families. This is mainly due both to the direct costs of rearing children, including child care costs, and the opportunity costs related to the reduced earning capacity of parents, arising from their care responsibilities. This applies particularly to lone parent families as the lone parent has to be the main breadwinner and carer at the same time.

The EU SILC figures show that 42.3% of households made up of one adult with children are at risk of poverty, which can be defined as the proportion of the population below an income threshold of 60% of median income. This compares with 22.7% of the population as a whole and 15.3% of two adults with one to three children households. The percentage of lone parent households in consistent poverty was 32.6% compared to 9.4% of total households and 6.5% of two adults and one to three children households.

The OECD, in a recent report on an international comparative study on reconciling work and family life, found that employment participation among lone parents in this country is among the lowest in the OECD. This is despite the huge employment growth and increasing female participation in the workforce in recent years and the income disregards afforded to lone parents who take up employment. In addition, of those in employment, a high proportion are in relatively low paying part-time employment. This may be due, in part at least, to the fact that availing of the income disregard under the one-parent family payment scheme enables a recipient top up their benefit from part-time employment without foregoing the security of having a regular weekly benefit. However, the report points out that this may be achieved at the price of foregoing better paid full-time employment, greater self sufficiency and a higher standard of living.

Entitlement to payments under the schemes is also contingent on not cohabiting with another adult either in marriage or outside marriage. This ensures that recipients under the schemes do not gain an advantage over those living together, either married or otherwise, and parenting the children on a joint basis. Reluctance to forgo the income security provided by the one-parent family payment may, however, act as a disincentive to a partnership and ultimately marriage for recipients.

A sub-group of the senior officials group on social inclusion is examining obstacles to employment for lone parent families, with particular emphasis on income supports, employment, education, child care and support programmes and information. This group is scheduled to report to the Cabinet committee on social inclusion by the end of July.

We must also look closely at income supports and at how we can adjust those supports to better address the social problems that can arise for those who receive these payments. In this regard, my Department has established a working group to review the income support arrangements for lone parents. Issues being addressed include the contingency basis of the one-parent family payment, cohabitation, individualisation, maintenance and secondary benefits. The findings of this group will feed into the work of the senior officials sub-group.

I am also giving consideration to the introduction of a second tier of child income supports, aimed specifically at families in greatest need. A study being carried out at present by the National Economic and Social Council is examining the possibility of amalgamating social welfare child dependant allowances with family income supplement payments. The objective is to provide an integrated channel for resources to low income families without creating disincentives to employment.

It is intended that the outcome of these reviews will contribute to concrete proposals designed to better support and encourage lone parents in achieving a better standard of living, employment and education opportunities, and a better future for themselves and their children. These will be the main criteria against which recommendations in the reports will be judged. I am committed to reforms that will improve the quality of life for lone parents and their children by offering them respect and support while avoiding poverty traps.

Michael Noonan (Limerick East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 16: To ask the Minister for Social and Family Affairs if he does not accept that approximately 230,000 children live in relative poverty; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [22923/05]

John Perry (Sligo-Leitrim, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 25: To ask the Minister for Social and Family Affairs if he will list and outline the current data on child poverty here; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [22927/05]

Dan Boyle (Cork South Central, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 41: To ask the Minister for Social and Family Affairs his views on the recommendations made in a statement on ending child poverty by the Combat Poverty Agency; and if he intends to examine all the recommendations as part of measures under consideration to tackle child poverty. [23035/05]

Séamus Brennan (Dublin South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I propose to take Questions Nos. 16, 25 and 41 together.

The reduction and eventual elimination of child poverty are at the core of the strategies to combat poverty and social exclusion, a priority shared internationally. The OECD, in a report to Ministers for Social Affairs in April 2005, pointed out that "children who grow up in disadvantaged households are more likely to do poorly at school, to struggle to find a job, and to be unemployed, sick or disabled when they become adults, precipitating an inter-generational cycle of disadvantage and deprivation.".

Detailed measures to give effect to the strategies to combat child poverty in Ireland are set out in the national action plan against poverty and social exclusion and in the national children's strategy. Ending Child Poverty is also one of ten special initiatives in Sustaining Progress. The latest available child poverty data is from the EU survey of income and living conditions, EU SILC, for 2003. The EU SILC indicated that 23.9% of children, equivalent to approximately 200,000, are "at risk of poverty", that is, living in households with less than 60% of median equivalised income for their household size. Of these, 120,000 approximately or 14.6% of children are living in households with income below the 60% threshold and experiencing deprivation in at least one of eight indicators considered essential for a decent standard of living in Ireland today.

The relatively high percentage rates of poverty are, paradoxically, in part due to the major increases in household incomes generally that have occurred due to our unprecedented economic growth and the resulting major expansion in employment. A recent EUROSTAT study, for example, calculated the monetary value of the 60% threshold in terms of purchasing power standards in 2003 for households with two adults and two children. This showed that the threshold in Ireland is now above the EU average in value and ranked eighth highest overall among the EU 25. This means that many households in Ireland with incomes below the 60% threshold, including those with children, may have a better standard of living than similar households classified as not at risk of poverty in other member states.

I mention this because a misleading impression is often given that the level of poverty in Ireland is among the highest even in the enlarged EU. This comes as a surprise to many, given the improvements that have been made with employment, increases in social welfare payments and in education, health, housing and other essential services. The real challenge, therefore, now is no longer in combating absolute poverty but in addressing the reality that many households, especially those with children, have not managed to secure an adequate share of the growing employment opportunities on offer and in the higher standards of living these provide.

The Combat Poverty Agency policy statement on ending child poverty, which I recently launched, deals with this reality. The statement identifies three specific areas for attention. These are the need for increased and targeted child income supports; measures to encourage lone parents back to education, training and work, and the delivery of additional child care places. These are fully in line in this regard with my priorities and those of the Government.

The most significant measure to support families with children in recent years has been the substantial real increases in child benefit payment rates. Between 1997 and 2005, the rate of child benefit rose from €38.09 per month for the first two children and €49.52 for each child thereafter to €141.60 per month for each of the first two children and to €177.30 per month for the third and each subsequent child. This equates to real increases in excess of 170%. Child benefit is paid to over 540,000 families in respect of approximately 1 million children, at an estimated cost of €1.916 billion in 2005. It delivers a standard rate of payment in respect of all children in a family regardless of income levels or employment status. Providing income support in this way thus creates no obstacles to employment and facilitates employment take up by providing significant support with child care costs.

Through the family income supplement scheme, my Department provides cash support by way of weekly payments to families at work on low pay. Recent improvements to the scheme, including the assessment of entitlements on the basis of net rather than gross income and progressive increases in the income limits, have made it easier for more lower income households to qualify under the scheme.

There is now full-time or part-time employment take up in a significant proportion of households with children. These mainly include recipients of the one-parent family payment or of payments in respect of disability and unemployment. In other households with bigger families, only one parent may be able to take up employment, which results in a lower family income. I believe that part of the solution to this may be the introduction of an integrated, second tier of child income support, aimed specifically at families on low income. This would supplement the support provided by child benefit in terms of creating no obstacles to employment and contributing towards the cost of child care in facilitating employment. It would also help to facilitate the option of part-time or full-time parental care for children.

In developing these policies full account will be taken of the Combat Poverty Agency study and of a forthcoming study under the Ending Child Poverty special initiative by the NESC on amalgamating social welfare child dependant allowances with the family income supplement. The present system of weekly payments and other supports for lone parents may be creating obstacles to employment and thus contributing to growing dependence on these payments and a greater long-term risk of poverty for recipients and their children. This level of dependence does not appear to occur in many other EU countries. I, therefore, fully accept the priority which the Combat Poverty Agency study gives to encouraging people on benefit, including lone parents, back to work. This has already been under active consideration for some time.

A sub-group of the senior officials group on social inclusion has been undertaking since last year a detailed examination of obstacles to employment for lone parents. A report will be submitted to the Cabinet committee on social inclusion before the end of July, consideration of which will receive top priority.

The provision of affordable and flexible child care is also a key factor in facilitating employment participation for families with children. My Department is participating in an interdepartmental working group on early child care and education, chaired by the National Children's Office. The work of this committee is at an advanced stage and the outcome will make an important contribution to finding the right mix of services and income support to facilitate employment take up and care for children.

We need to monitor and evaluate the outcomes of the policies being pursued on the development of our children and get the necessary evidence on what works and works well. This process is about to commence with a major national longitudinal study on children which is expected to commence later in 2005. It is being jointly funded by my Department and the Department of Health and Children, through the National Children's Office. The study will be the most significant of its kind to be undertaken here, particularly in terms of the cost, scope and length of study period. It is anticipated that 10,000 children from birth and 8,000 children aged nine will be recruited to participate in the study.

I am confident that through the measures already being taken and the initiatives being planned, which will soon come to fruition, we are making a major contribution to ensuring that vulnerable families and their children have a fair share of the life chances and quality of life, which our prosperity as a nation is already conferring on a majority.