Social Welfare (Liable Relatives and Child Maintenance) Bill 2023: Second Stage

Question proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Minister for Social Protection (Deputy Heather Humphreys)

In line with the programme for Government commitment, the Government established a child maintenance review group to examine certain issues relating to child maintenance in Ireland. The group's terms of reference were to consider and make recommendations on the current treatment of child maintenance payments in the Department of Social Protection, the current provisions regarding liable relatives managed by the Department, and the establishment of a child maintenance agency in Ireland. The report of the Child Maintenance Review Group was published in November 2022. There was no consensus among the group on the establishment of a child maintenance agency. This matter falls under the remit of the Department of Justice and it is not within the scope of this Bill.

Since publication of the report of the Child Maintenance Review Group, a number of measures have been brought forward by the Minister for Justice to reform the family law system in respect of child maintenance. The report set out three recommendations relating to child maintenance and the social welfare system: that child maintenance payments will no longer be included in social welfare means tests; that the efforts to seek maintenance requirement for certain payments will no longer apply; and that the liable relatives provisions operated by the Department of Social Protection should no longer apply. The Government has accepted all three recommendations.

Last year, I signed regulations to remove the requirement for recipients of the one-parent family payment and jobseeker’s transitional payment to make efforts to seek maintenance from the child’s other parent. This requirement often involved lone parents having to go to court to seek a maintenance order, so this change removes a potential additional stress for them, as well as helping to reduce the burden on our courts system. This is a significant benefit for lone parents and something that representative groups have been calling for. The Bill sets out the legislative provisions required to implement the other two recommendations. The combined effect of these measures will be to decouple the social welfare system from child maintenance.

As Members will be aware, to qualify for any social assistance payment, the applicant must satisfy a means test. A person’s means, as calculated by my Department, must be below a certain level to qualify for a means-tested payment. When a person does qualify for a payment, their rate of payment will depend on the level of their means. Means currently includes all capital, earnings, and other income, including maintenance payments, whether child or spousal maintenance.

Some income sources, such as child benefit, are disregarded in the means test. There is also a capital disregard and other disregards that apply in different ways across schemes.

As a result of the provisions in this Bill, my Department will no longer assess child maintenance payments in the means tests for social welfare schemes. This will be of direct benefit to an estimated 16,000 lone parents at a cost of €10 million a year. In some cases, this will mean that people receive a higher payment. In others, it will mean that people qualify for a payment for the first time. I only have to think back to my days working in a credit union, where I met many parents who relied on child maintenance. I saw it on different occasions; some weeks, the child maintenance was paid, and other weeks, it was missed. The person who suffers most in that situation is the child, and I do not want to see that happen again. That is why I believe this particular element of the Bill, excluding child maintenance payments from the means test, will make a huge difference to the lives of many families.

Under family law, parents have obligations regarding the maintenance of their children. The “liability to maintain family” provisions in social welfare legislation are separate to these obligations. They do not negate or supersede family law obligations in any way. Where a person is in receipt of one-parent family payment, the liable relative provisions provide the Department with a legislative basis to assess the child’s other parent. The Department can then issue a determination order for that other parent to pay a contribution towards the costs of the scheme. These provisions are being revoked by this Bill. This means that the Department will no longer seek to recoup a portion of claim costs from the non-resident parent in these cases.

On an administrative basis, the liable relative provisions have not been applied to new claims for one-parent family payment since the Government decided to revoke the provisions in late 2022. I should clarify that under the liable relative provisions, the Department is not arranging maintenance but ensuring, where possible, that where there is a one-parent family payment in place, the other parent makes a financial contribution towards the cost to the State of providing that support.

In 2022, expenditure on the one-parent family payment was approximately €614 million. The cash receipts to the Department as a result of activity carried out under the liable relative provisions amounted to less than €400,000. I should again emphasise that removing the liable relative provisions does not replace or supersede the primary responsibility of parents to maintain their children.

The general scheme of the Bill was referred for pre-legislative scrutiny to the Joint Committee on Social Protection, Community and Rural Development and the Islands. I thank the committee for its deliberations during pre-legislative scrutiny and for its report.

I will now go through the Bill section by section. Each section amends the Social Welfare Consolidation Act 2005, as amended.

Section 1 provides for the definition of relevant Acts which are referred to in the Bill. It defines the “Act of 2015” as meaning the “Social Welfare (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2015”. It also defines the “Principal Act” as meaning the “Social Welfare Consolidation Act 2005”.

Section 2 amends the definition of “social welfare inspector” and the interpretation of “liable relative,” to remove references to Part 12 of the Act. Part 12 sets out the “Liability to Maintain Family” provisions and is being repealed under section 5 of this Bill.

Section 3 removes a reference to Part 12 of the Act from the provisions relating to the role and duties of a social welfare inspector. As a result of these amendments in sections 2 and 3, a social welfare inspector will no longer have any role regarding liable relatives.

Section 4 removes a reference to Part 12 of the Act from the provisions setting out the role and duties of deciding officers. As a result, deciding officers in the Department of Social Protection will have no role regarding liable relatives.

Section 5 is the substantial amendment which repeals Part 12 of the Act which sets out the “Liability to Maintain Family” provisions. As a result, my Department will no longer seek to recoup a contribution from the other parent where a one-parent family payment is in place. Once again, I want to stress that removing these provisions does not replace or supersede the primary responsibility of parents to maintain their children.

Section 6 provides for a number of amendments to ensure that child maintenance payments are not assessed in the means tests for various social welfare schemes. It inserts a new term, “maintenance payment made to or in respect of a qualified child”, into the Act and defines this to mean “any maintenance payment made to or in respect of a qualified child that may be prescribed”. This change will mean that my Department will have to distinguish between child maintenance and other maintenance payments which a person might receive. It is my intention to provide for this distinction by way of regulations made under this provision.

The section further provides for consequential amendments to the rules governing the calculation of means as set out in Schedule 3 to the Act. As a result of this change, child maintenance payments will no longer be assessed in the means tests for a range of schemes, including in relation to jobseekers, pensions and, importantly, one-parent family payment. Section 6 also defines the “Act of 2022” as meaning the “Social Welfare Act 2022”. Section 7 provides for the Short Title, construction and commencement.

As Deputies will be aware, the EU temporary protection directive has been extended to March 2025. Ireland has welcomed more than 103,000 arrivals from Ukraine, with 76,000 people currently living in State accommodation and 58,000 in fully serviced accommodation. This relates to my intention to bring forward amendments to the EU temporary protection directive. Ireland has welcomed 2.3% of those fleeing Ukraine who have come to the EU since the war, which is a significant response, and weekly arrivals remain high. Following extensive discussions, the Government has decided to amend the support and accommodation provided. This will more closely align us with other EU member states. We will, of course, continue to meet Ireland's obligations under the temporary protection directive.

The new arrangements will involve the Department of Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth introducing a more time-limited 90-day accommodation offering for newly arriving beneficiaries. In addition, the current equivalence with Irish citizens in terms of accessing social welfare benefits will be removed while still meeting the standard set out in the directive. As a result, beneficiaries of the directive who are living in designated accommodation centres will not be eligible for social assistance payments, and will instead receive a payment of €38 per week, which is the equivalent of the expenses allowance paid to those in direct provision.

Implementing these changes will require legislative amendments. The Government has approved the drafting of the necessary amendments for inclusion in this Bill. I want to signal to the House that I intend to bring forward the necessary legislative amendments to give effect to these changes as part of this Bill. This is to ensure that the changes can take effect as soon as possible. Officials from the relevant Department are working closely with the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel and the Office of the Attorney General.

I believe the measures contained in this Bill will have a positive impact on the lives of lone parents. They represent changes that many people, including Members of this House, in particular Deputy Kerrane, have been calling for over a number of years. They will help to tackle child poverty and make the child maintenance system in Ireland fairer, more humane and more effective. I, therefore, commend the Bill to the House and I look forward to Deputies' contributions.

Deputy Claire Kerrane

I am delighted to see this legislation progress in the House today and I commend the Minister on making it happen. It is very important legislation that will make a real difference to the lives of lone parents and their families.

When I took up the role as the party's adviser on social protection back in 2016, I knew very little about lone parents and how they access or, in many cases, do not access child maintenance. The many changes to how the system works since then will make a difference. These are issues that very much remained with me, particularly the instances where lone parents go to court and how that can work out or, in many cases, not work out at all. Of course, we would all like to think we live in a world where both parents contribute financially to bringing up their child or children but, unfortunately, that is not the case. With that reality in mind, we have to do everything we can to support lone parents and their families, particularly when it comes to income and financial supports through the social protection system. That can be done. The changes that have been made in this legislation will make a difference and will support lone parents an awful lot better.

This has been a long time coming. I have raised the issue of maintenance being treated as household means and how wrong that is many times in this House since I was elected. It was never right to treat maintenance as a type of household income coming into the house. It should always be the case that maintenance is for bringing up and supporting a child or children as they grow up. It was also the case that even where lone parents ended up going to court and a maintenance order was determined by the judge of the day in that court, it did not necessarily mean that maintenance was actually paid.

Once it was court-ordered, however, it was listed as maintenance for the social protection system. Whether it was paid or not, it was deducted and the lone parent's income support was reduced. On the one hand, lone parents were obliged to prove they sought maintenance, and some had to do that through the courts, while, on the other hand, they were risking having maintenance ordered but not paid and their payment being reduced. They were therefore being punished financially, one way or the other, in some cases.

The Minister will also know that I was critical of the liable relative’s clause. The system did not work. The figures speak for themselves. I found it concerning that the Department did whatever it took to recoup its costs. If the same effort was made when seeking maintenance in the first place, it would have been far more beneficial for lone parents and their families.

I ask that the measures announced today - I know the legislation has not yet been signed into law - be communicated as best as possible to lone-parent families, particularly through organisations such as SPARK, One Family Ireland and the new national alliance which do so much great work representing lone parents and their families. We need to communicate the message to lone parents who may be on a reduced payment that it may be increased. While the legislation is certainly a step in the right direction, we can and should do more.

While I understand there was no consensus on the review group, it did not necessarily disagree on establishing a child maintenance service. I have brought forward proposals on this matter three times. They are published and replicate to some degree the system in place in the North of Ireland. It is not just a system that collects maintenance but one that provides support and advice to lone parents. Some parents will not require assistance when it comes to agreeing maintenance. Others will require assistance when it comes to calculating what that maintenance should be. At the moment, when a case goes through the courts, the judge of the day will pick a figure out of the air. That is how maintenance is determined. One judge could determine it is €50 on one day and another judge down the country could say it should be €100. There is no mechanism for setting maintenance. I ask that further consideration be given to establishing such a service to provide advice and support to lone parents in making a calculation where agreement cannot be reached on the amount to be paid and, in some cases, to have the powers, via the Revenue Commissioners, to collect maintenance where it is not being paid. We know that in some cases maintenance is court-ordered or agreed and is not paid. It is the lone parent who then has to go back to court and the vicious circle starts again. It is always on the shoulders of the lone parents. That is not right.

I do not believe a service would cost an awful lot of money. There would be an increased cost at the beginning, perhaps similar to the set-up cost of the Residential Tenancies Board. After that, it will be money well spent on supporting lone-parent families. We know that lone-parent families rank very high under the three indicators of consistent poverty, at-risk of poverty and deprivation. Research has shown that where maintenance is paid, as opposed to ordered and agreed, it can play a part in reducing poverty. For that reason alone, further consideration should be given to the establishment of a child maintenance service. I ask that the Minister address this through another avenue. Now that the child maintenance review group has done its work and published its report, I ask that another mechanism be used to engage with the relevant organisations to see if this can happen.

I am glad to see the changes in this legislation, which will make a difference for parents. I commend the Minister in that regard. Today is a good day for lone-parent families but there is more to be done. A child maintenance service would have a greater impact than anything else that could be done to support lone parents by ensuring that both parents contribute in some way to raising their child or children. It is the best way to do that and to support lone-parent families.

Deputy Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire

Cuirim fáilte roimh an mBille seo. Tréaslaím leis an Aire agus leis an Teachta Kerrane in éineacht leis na hoifigigh sa Roinn. Is reachtaíocht fhíorthábhachtach é seo a dhéanfaidh an-difríocht do thuismitheoirí aonair agus do dhaoine atá ag comhoibriú ó thaobh tuismitheoireachta. Ní raibh na forálacha faoi mar a bhí cóir. Níor thóg siad cuntas i gceart gur don chaiteachas a bhaineann leis na leanaí atá á thógáil aige nó aici atá san airgead atá á thabhairt don tuismitheoir aonair seachas ioncam breise.

I welcome this important Bill and that child maintenance payments will no longer be assessed as means. This is a long overdue measure. I also welcome the discontinuation of the liable relative provision. I commend the Minister and her officials on their important work on the legislation. I commend Deputy Kerrane in particular. This has been a passion of hers for many years. In the previous Dáil term, I recall the Deputy working with Deputy Brady. I also acknowledge Deputy Brady's work on this. Deputy Kerrane has been working on this for years now. She has driven it passionately in our party and has made it a social welfare priority for Sinn Féin. I would like to think her work has helped to push the Department and Minister to move on the issue. I am sure the Minister was sympathetic in any event, but I think the emphasis that has been placed on the matter has been very welcome. Away from the glare of the media, this place sometimes works okay. Sometimes the Opposition and Government can find agreement and co-operate. I acknowledge that as well.

We have sought this change for many years. It is important to note that the removal of these provisions does not replace or supersede the primary responsibility of parents to maintain their children. That is crucially important. The payment of maintenance by the non-custodial parent is not just a recognition payment but an obligation. The Minister and I both know that children are expensive. This is not an additional income by any manner or means. Often, it will not come close to meeting the costs that children accrue. They are obviously worth every penny but there is no doubt that there is a significant associated cost.

There is no doubt in my mind that there is an obligation on the parent. Many people are co-parenting and fulfilling that obligation perfectly well and that needs to be acknowledged. This legislation is to ensure that in circumstances where that is not happening, the other parent does not lose out significantly. They are already single parents. It is worth acknowledging that single parent families are at enormous risk of poverty relative to the rest of the population and these families are overwhelmingly, albeit not exclusively, headed by single mothers. This obligation and expectation need to remain in place. That is my expectation and I hope it remains an expectation of the Department. That ties in well with the point about the need for a child maintenance service.

Tuigim go bhfuil an tAire tar éis a rá gur fhreagracht don Aire Dlí agus Cirt é sin. Tá sé sin ceart ach táimid ag déanamh díospóireachta ar reachtaíocht agus moladh a bhfuil an Rialtas ina iomláine freagrach astu mar aonad. Cé go raibh tromlach i bhfabhar, tá sé tábhachtach a rá nach raibh gach duine i bhfabhar. Is moladh ceart é agus déanann sé ciall. Coimeádfaidh sé tuismitheoirí amuigh ó na cúirteanna nuair nach gá dóibh dul ann. Ba chóir go mbeadh sé sin mar thosaíocht againn i gcónaí.

I note that the establishment of a child maintenance service is the responsibility of the Minister for Justice. When debating a Bill, however, there is no harm in acknowledging the responsibility of the whole of the Government. The Government can discuss these issues, which brings me to another point, one I will raise in a moment, related to the Minister for housing. This is a relevant topic for discussion. I appreciate the Minister's point that there was a majority but not unanimous opinion on this matter. Notwithstanding that, establishing such a service is a good idea. Sinn Féin would do so in government and this Government should do it. Our objective with regard to maintenance and everything else related to the family should be, where possible, to keep these issues out of the courts and legal system. The less cost, the fewer causes for friction and the fewer adversarial situations, the better.

This applies in other areas as well. It is a source of huge regret to me that in recent years I have come across local authorities where previously an affidavit was adequate to demonstrate that a single parent was living alone. Now, increasingly, I am seeing local authorities asking lone parents to go to court. That is wrong and gives rise to unnecessary cost.

It brings the adversarial situation into play. The way this issue has been left, with no child maintenance service, also increases the possibility for adversarial situations and friction. That is not always the case but it is a greater possibility.

The previous system was inefficient in obtaining contributions from non-custodial parents. While this is to be changed, ending this policy alone will not meet families' needs. We need to see the establishment of a statutory child maintenance service. As Deputy Kerrane has demonstrated, that does not need to be expensive and it is something we have consistently provided for in our alternative budget. Such a service would take the responsibility for the pursuit of child maintenance off the shoulders of lone parents and, importantly, out of the courts. That is an important move. It is not fair to force parents through the courts system. In Britain and the North, the move to a child maintenance service has been largely positive and it removes the adversarial approach. It also ensures that the child is central to the decision on child maintenance to be paid and has the necessary enforcement powers to ensure it is paid.

I urge the Minister to keep this matter on the agenda and continue to discuss it with the Minister, Deputy McEntee. There may not have been unanimity but plenty of recommendations from the committee have been enforced without them having unanimous support. A majority should be adequate. The model that Sinn Féin proposes draws on extensive work that an Teachta Kerrane, Deputy Brady and I, along with others, have done on the issues. It echoes calls from other organisations, including SPARK, One Family Ireland, Treoir and a variety of others. We want to take child maintenance out of the courts and instead see a statutory agency step in when it comes to the arrangement, calculation and payment of child maintenance, rather than leaving it up to the lone parent alone. We know that child maintenance, where paid, can play a key role in reducing child poverty. That is one reason having a robust system in place is so important. I urge the Minister to examine our proposals carefully.

As the Minister and Deputy Kerrane acknowledged, one-parent families remain at a significantly greater risk of poverty than the general population. That has been the case for many years. While actions have been taken to address that, much more needs to be done. In the Sinn Féin alternative budget for 2024, we provided for a number of specific measures that would apply to one-parent families and tackle this issue. They include increasing the age limit for one-parent family payment to 12 years; beginning the process of increasing the age limit of the jobseeker's transitional payment to 18 years, starting with an increase by one year up to 15 years; establishing a child maintenance service; and increases in the qualified child payment for all children. The Government did not take action on these measures.

It is wrong that one-parent families lose the one-parent family payment when their child reaches seven years of age. That was one of the worst cuts of the recessionary era and it has not been addressed. I have spoken to people who are getting the one-parent family and working the hours that allows them to get the working family payment. All of a sudden, they no longer get that payment and lose a significant amount of income because their child turns seven. That is a serious cliff edge for those parents and amounts to a loss of a significant amount of money on a monthly basis. That puts them at a much greater risk of poverty. These are parents who are working. That, too, should be acknowledged because that cliff edge is wrong. Similarly, the cliff edge at 14 years of age is a problem. More needs to be done in that area and we need to continue to discuss it. People will talk about the jobseeker's transitional payment people can get when their child reaches seven years of age, which is an equivalent rate, but they cannot get the working family payment if they go on the jobseeker's transitional payment. That is a serious flaw.

Lone parents deserve better. The costs of raising a child - the cost of clothing, food, childcare and back-to-school costs, among others - are constantly increasing. A single parent who is renting will not have much left after the rent is paid. The cost of raising a child in Ireland is skyrocketing. I know this goes beyond the Minister's Department and needs cross-departmental consideration. As I stated, in advance of the budget the Children's Rights Alliance proposed what it considered to be the minimum increase for a qualified child. The budget measure outlined did not meet that minimum. The alliance called for an increase of €5 for those aged under 12 and €10 for those aged over 12, whereas a €4 increase was introduced across the board. Child benefit has not increased since 2016 and it is still below 2008 levels. The payment has lost much of its impact in supporting families. I urge the Government to listen to and implement proposals brought forward by Sinn Féin, as it has thankfully done with this Bill. I welcome that action has been taken but much more is needed to support one-parent families.

I come to the issue of housing, and again this is not the Minister's responsibility. There is a comparison that can be drawn fairly and it needs to be examined. I urge the Minister to bring it to her colleagues at Cabinet, particularly the Minister for housing. For the purposes of social housing need assessment, child maintenance is still considered as income by most local authorities. Similarly, for the purposes of the housing assistance payment, HAP, when the differential rent that the HAP tenant has to pay to the local authority is being calculated, child maintenance is considered an income. We have agreed in principle that child maintenance is not an additional income or a recognition payment. It is a payment to defray the considerable costs of raising a child. Surely the same principle should apply with HAP and social housing. I urge the Minister to raise this issue at Cabinet and have it considered. I know she cannot act on this alone but as part of Government, this is an issue that can be addressed.

The same principle applies. This is not an additional income; it is simply to defray, often only partially, the cost of raising children. In some instances, that rules people out and puts their income over the limit for social housing, thereby disqualifying them. That is a source of serious regret and something we should avoid. As we know, credit time for social housing is money in the bank for families so it is devastating for families when this happens. It does not put the interests of the child first when a family potentially misses out on the opportunity to have a secure home and a roof over their head due to the child maintenance payment. That is not right and I urge the Government to look at it.

That is the height of it. I commend the Minister and her Department on bringing forward this useful Bill. It is a good piece of work and while there is more to be done, it is very welcome. I acknowledge, in particular, the work that Deputies Kerrane and Brady have done over several years in highlighting this issue. This is a good day for lone parents but there is much more to be done.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

When Deputy McAuliffe is finished speaking the Minister will conclude the debate. I am giving the House that warning.

Deputy Paul McAuliffe

When I saw the attendance I suspected my slot would come earlier so I took the opportunity to avoid the debate falling.

I mention the phrase "success can have many mothers and fathers". It is not often I get the opportunity to congratulate both the Government and Opposition on good examples of a practical and pragmatic issue being brought forward, listened to in the Department and supported by organisations such as SPARK, One Family and so on. The provisions in the Bill that relate to families and lone parents are pragmatic and practical.

In the week the House voted to extend the constitutional definition of a family to families other than the traditional marital unit, it is important to say that measures like this are examples of how Ireland has changed over recent decades. If the House is making similar changes to social welfare legislation or any other form of legislation, it is time the Constitution caught up with that principle. I say to the many one-parent families that the Government is introducing these measures and a constitutional protection for the family and the definition of the family gives the control in the Constitution to that principle and protects against any future Government deviating from such policies.

On the provisions, I particularly welcome the concept that maintenance is not disposable income that can be compared with any other form of income. That is important. The previous speakers made a valid point on its use in the calculation of differential rent. That is a matter on which the housing committee could do some work and submit it to the Minister for housing. I will commit to doing that as the Leas-Chathaoirleach of that committee.

On the issue of the liable parent, elements of this are about control. When relationships break down there can often be issues of control. In an abusive relationship, engagement in the court system on issues of custody and maintenance can be used to exert control.

What the Minister has done here, while being a very pragmatic step in regard to social welfare administration, also removes an opportunity for adverse control to be used in a relationship that is abusive and I especially welcome that. It also removes an element of judgment. At the core of a provision like this is an element of judgment about lone parents and so on and that is a sentiment that has long disappeared and it is right to remove it. The last point is that it is a very good example of the State quality-controlling the legislation we pass and looking at the numbers, which speak for themselves. This is not working as a provision and therefore it is not appropriate that we probably spend more money administering the system than it brings in. For all those reasons I commend the Minister and the Opposition on advocating this position, which I support.

On the provisions concerning the temporary protection extended to people from Ukraine, this is again a pragmatic decision. When the war occurred we did not know how long it would be. There was a very generous, open response reflecting our wish to support those Ukrainian people and to do everything we could and we continue to do that. However, as the war has gone on, we have to put this both on a sustainable footing and on a footing equivalent to our European partners. We are in a Single Market, have freedom of movement within the Continent and it is wise for us to have a similar provision for people who are coming from Ukraine. I commend the Minister and Government on making that decision. As we are doing with other provisions, we need to keep a watchful eye on it. As we need to ensure nobody who is vulnerable finds him or herself in a position, because of transition arrangements and so on, where that person is unable to care for and look after him or herself, we should continue to keep a close eye on it. These are the right provisions and I commend the Minister on them.

Deputy Gary Gannon

I welcome this Bill. It is absolutely necessary that the plight of children in poverty is treated with the seriousness it deserves. The report and review that provide the basis for this Bill are a multitude of steps in the right direction but I should point out that as UNICEF stated in a recent publication, Ireland has made progress in reducing child poverty but it still exists at a completely unacceptable level across the country. Not a single child should suffer from poverty, yet UNICEF still found one in seven children are still living in poverty and more than one in ten have experienced prolonged poverty, which is defined as lasting at least three consecutive years. That is three years without the absolute minimum required to live a life of dignity or to have a fulfilling childhood.

It goes without saying all children should be treated equally, regardless of who they are, where they are from, their colour or their creed. A child deprivation module published by the CSO indicated children in single-parent households which had no one in employment and children in rented accommodation were most at risk of experiencing deprivation. The children who grew up in households below the poverty line had a greater likelihood of remaining in poverty for much of their life. A few months ago the Pobal deprivation index showed a rise in people living areas classified as "very disadvantaged" or "extremely disadvantaged". We are, it is often said, living through a period of full employment, yet quality of life in areas that have traditionally been deprived has yet to improve and has in some instances worsened. The data revealed the number of people living in areas classed as very disadvantaged or extremely disadvantaged increased from 143,000 in 2016 to 196,000 in 2022, which is a rise of more than 52,000 people over six years, not discounting the fact we have had population increases.

A disproportionate number of disadvantaged communities are located in my constituency of Dublin Central. Some of them are where I grew up in the north inner city. These are all areas where there is a greater number of one-parent families, higher unemployment rates and lower levels of education than in many parts of the country. These families have often felt abandoned by government and its policies, which are seen as failing them generation after generation. Similarly, children with disabilities and many from minority ethnic or racial backgrounds are often at a higher than average risk of poverty, as are children of lone parents, who are three times more likely to experience poverty.

The long-term effects of child poverty are dire. The inability of a household to afford nutritious food, warm clothes, a secure home and a decent education more often than not leads to lifelong disadvantages for a child with respect to their opportunities, future health and generational quality of life. Last year, at least 13,000 people, almost 4,000 of whom are children, spent Christmas in emergency homeless accommodation. That is the highest figure recorded in the history of the State. When all these statistics are taken into account, it is clear we need to make changes to our social welfare system to ensure we leave no child behind. It is the absolute least we can do. The Taoiseach recently stated he wants Ireland to be the best country in the world in which to be a child. I am not even sure he knows how far we are from that being achieved, but it is absolutely necessary that we all band together and collaborate to make such a statement a reality.

This Bill is a rarity in Irish politics, in that it is based on a comprehensive review and report that took the opinions of major stakeholders and experts in the field seriously and in doing so has made a step in the right direction. I welcome the implementation of the recommendations of the report of the child maintenance review group regarding the social welfare system. One-parent family obligations to seek maintenance to access social welfare has delayed payments and caused vulnerable families and their children to go without. The new definition of maintenance payments is also welcome, as child maintenance should not be assessed as a means for the purpose of any social welfare means test. Child maintenance payments are required for many vulnerable families in exclusion of their receipt of any other support required for those children. If this section of the legislation is to be enacted, some one-parent families will receive higher rates of payment or new payments altogether and this is an example of a targeted, structural change that should make a real difference to those who need it and is incredibly welcome.

There are still many pitfalls in legislation which we must be sure to avoid if any significant improvements are to be achieved. The National One Parent Family Alliance has expressed deep disappointment with the Government’s decision to not establish a statutory child maintenance agency or appropriate system despite the majority vote of an independent committee in favour of the creation of same. I second this view. Without such an agency, the roll-out of maintenance payments runs the risk of inconsistency and incapacity to keep up with demand, which could lead to a failure to achieve this Bill’s goal of alleviating poverty and disadvantage for those most at risk.

I agree with the committee’s stating there is scope for such an agency within the Department of Justice. Without such structures in place, the benefits this Bill hopes to bring may fall by the wayside, as many have during this Government’s tenure. The National One Parent Family Alliance also points out that without a child maintenance agency, the dissolution of the liable relatives unit, which is another aspect of this Bill, may lead to a loss of child maintenance or parents receiving one-parent family allowance and an increase in lone parents seeking child maintenance through the family courts. As the committee’s report suggests, when a lone parent’s youngest child turns seven years of age, non-resident parents receive a letter saying they need to switch payment of maintenance from the Department to another parent, which leads to a 60% drop in maintenance payments due to non-payment and a 50% drop in the overall amount of maintenance paid after the youngest child turns seven. Without a child maintenance agency, communications with liable relatives may cease to be clear and concise, leading to underpayments and damage to a child’s well-being. Due to how overwhelmed our family law courts regularly are, it is disheartening the State is taking a step back from its role in enforcing maintenance orders. I fear the delays that could result from this burden on the courts could leave vulnerable families in need at times when they might require support the most. Why, despite consultation and widespread approval, has a statutory child maintenance agency been left off the agenda?

As I stated in this contribution and all my time speaking in this Chamber, one-parent families are among the most disadvantaged groups in society. Their risk of poverty is a horrendous reality to behold. Children are the ones who lose out when it comes to the negative effects of means-testing in areas where intergenerational trauma is embedded in families. Everyone involved is hurt by the status quo and the changes proposed in this Bill create the chance for a better system. However, it is of utmost importance that money intended for the child is indeed used to improve their quality of life and prospects. Only by investing in future generations can we interrupt and stop this intergenerational poverty that ravages our communities. It is also equally welcome that the report acknowledges the current rate of housing disregard at just over €95 and calls it derisory. It is a joke compared with current rent and mortgage rates and should be reassessed immediately as it is leaving countless vulnerable families behind. This debate is not centred around housing but it is difficult to stray far from the topic when discussing poverty and deprivation.

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív

Tá áthas orm deis a bheith agam cúpla focal a rá ar an mBille seo. There are two parts to this Bill. It is not the first time a Bill has had two very disparate parts and I understand why that was done, so I am going to treat them separately.

I remember suggesting when they were talking about an Irish language Act in the North that there should be two parts to that language Act, with totally separate provisions - one part for the Irish language that would reflect its status in the Good Friday Agreement and the other for Ulster Scots, reflecting a different status because it had a different status in the aforementioned agreement. I suggested this be done within the one Act. I believe there is merit in doing things like that and being creative when we are legislating.

I welcome this Bill. Anything that rationalises and eases the burden of social welfare means-testing will get my support. I hope that this is another step on a path of more changes to the means-testing regime. I have often said that if people are down, the State will provide a basic income, which is the welfare system. In all circumstances, people should be entitled to a welfare payment and that is the system we have. However, what I would argue is that for those just above that level, the minute they start climbing the ladder, we tend to haul them back at a fairly drastic rate. This is an inhibiting factor for people. It inhibits them from improving their standard of living and that is not a good thing. The minimum or basic social welfare rate should be seen as just that, a basic payment, but as many people as possible should be facilitated to have a higher income than that. Eventually, if they get high enough, they should come clean out of the welfare system and start becoming a taxpayer. That should be seamless but it is not. As the Minister knows, the means test penalty is much more severe in reality in terms of the financial penalty it imposes on people than many of the higher-end tax rates on individual citizens.

Basically, the changes here are twofold. The Minister is changing the means test vis-à-vis the child maintenance payment, which will no longer be assessed as means and I believe that is sensible. I have argued for this many times and was surprised when dealing with cases that this was not the way it was. This is an important step in the right direction because it stops people from being pushed into poverty. The Minister knows all of the positive consequences of not being in poverty. We all know the consequences of being in poverty, the dependency it creates and the disadvantage it leads to for children in particular. It often leads to educational disadvantage and can also lead to intergenerational disadvantage. What we should be doing is the opposite by trying to make it much easier for people to rise above that and to move on with their lives.

The second change is the discontinuation of the liable relative provision. Currently, where a lone parent is in receipt of the one-parent family payment, the Department has a legislative basis for carrying out an assessment of the other parent and issuing a determination order for that parent to make a contribution to the Department towards the cost. I would not think the Department took in much money. This is one of those old provisions that was a drag on the system and which, in the context of the Minister's €26 billion budget, was not providing any saving. In fact, it was just causing more grief, more administration and so on.

I hope that this is the first of many changes this year. The Minister has brought in changes previously and has done good work on the means-testing of the carer's allowance and the fuel allowance, in particular, which is very welcome. I am looking forward to the report the Department is preparing on social welfare means-testing and to a continuous roll-out of changes. I do not think it should be a big bang report or a big bang implementation. The best approach, always, is to do things step by step to ensure that any unintended consequences get ironed out fairly rapidly. I look forward to that happening.

The second issue I would like to talk about is the payment given to Ukrainians compared with international protection candidates, which I have always thought is completely out of kilter. It actually left them better off than Irish citizens because they were getting board and lodgings, even with the changes that were made, for something like €50 per week, whereas people on social welfare would have to pay €40 in rent, buy their own food and pay for their heat and light. While I think this change is sensible, I have some issues with it. First, the allowance of €38 per week for everybody who is seeking international protection, as well as for Ukrainians from now on, is low. That payment should be reviewed and raised because it is a very small amount of discretionary money for any person. That said, I do agree that everybody should be on the same rate.

The other issue that really worries me is the 90-day limit. I know this is not a decision of the Department of Social Protection but it is part of a suite of measures and I ask the Minister to carry a message back to her Government colleagues. What happens after 90 days? Where are they meant to go? If we put them on the housing list, the Minister knows what is going to happen. It will mean more competition within communities who are all queuing up for public or social housing, for HAP, and so on. If they do not go there, where are they going to go? That is the one part that really worries me because of the potential consequences within communities as well as for those seeking tearmann, asylum or refuge in this country who come from Ukraine. We need to think this out and admit that we cannot enforce a 90-day limit. All of the people seeking international protection do not, quite rightly, face a 90-day limit because they are not entitled to HAP or to go on the housing list. Even if we did make them so entitled, we would just increase the pressure and competition within communities who already feel that the housing lists are way too long. That one should be thought out again.

Deputy Martin Browne

Data from the 2022 survey on income and living conditions shows that those living in one-adult households with children under 18 years were among the groups most likely to experience enforced deprivation, at over 43% compared to nearly 18% of the population as a whole. The treatment of child maintenance payments within the Department of Social Protection as means, and the requirement to make efforts to seek maintenance as a condition of eligibility for the one-parent family payment and jobseeker's transitional payment has hampered efforts to address the deprivation figures I opened with. While I welcome that these two issues are being addressed in the Bill finally being put forward today, I have to highlight my concern that what is missing from this legislation is the establishment of a statutory maintenance agency.

In March 2017, the United Nations published a report on the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, which suggested that consideration be given to the establishment of a statutory maintenance authority to reduce the burden on parents of having to seek child maintenance orders. It has been pointed out by the National One Parent Family Alliance that a failure to establish such a statutory maintenance agency could result in a loss of child maintenance for parents receiving the one-parent family allowance and an increase in lone parents seeking child maintenance through the family courts. We know that when non-resident parents are directed to switch payment of maintenance from the Department to the other parent, the transitional period results in a 60% drop in maintenance payments. The One Parent Family Alliance told the Oireachtas social protection committee that it is concerned that the likelihood of this could increase as oversight drops, leaving hard-pressed lone parents increasingly having to address this through the courts.

Sinn Féin has been consistent in promoting the need for a what we have referred to as a child maintenance service for Ireland. This would remove the adversarial court approach and ensure that the child is central to any decisions on the child maintenance to be paid. This service must have the necessary enforcement powers to actually ensure maintenance is paid. Our child maintenance service would also assist parents in reaching agreements on maintenance where the non-custodial parent is willing to pay. In cases where they are not so willing, it would calculate the child maintenance payment, collect it from the non-custodial parent and pay it to the other parent. I urge the Minister to discuss this with the Minister for Justice. We have also proposed increasing the age limit for the one-parent family payment to 12 years and we would begin the process of increasing the age limit for the jobseeker's transitional payment to 18.

Finally, I have been told many times that maintenance payments are affecting the rent or HAP contributions people are expected to pay. Could the Government examine the possibility of excluding maintenance in the assessment of means for housing support and contributions under HAP?

Deputy Paul Murphy

I welcome this Bill as a long overdue reform of the social welfare system in relation to maintenance.

It is nothing short of outrageous that for decades lone mothers have been legally obliged to pursue fathers for maintenance by the Department of Social Protection and are then penalised by the Department when the father does not pay court-approved maintenance. That is because the Department deducts maintenance approved by the courts from the mother's social welfare payments regardless of whether she actually received it or not. Her reward for months or even years of chasing a father through the courts for maintenance is to have the amount approved by the court deducted from her own payment.

Submissions to the child maintenance review group from women's rights and lone parent's organisations, such as SPARK and Women's Aid, have spelled out the incredible injustice of that situation. It is yet another example of the State working in a misogynistic way to victimise lone parents. Not satisfied with placing the full burden of responsibility on them to raise their children alone, with very little help from the State as regards housing or childcare, its maintenance regime has directly penalised lone parents for raising a family by themselves. All of the women's rights and children's rights organisations have told us for years that this is grossly unfair on lone parents and that it contributes to child poverty and homelessness, especially as maintenance is deducted from rent supplement. It has taken all these years, however, for the Government to finally act.

I hope this is only a first step in removing every last vestige of misogyny and discrimination against lone parents from our social welfare system. Unfortunately, plenty of those elements are still in our system, including the utter disgrace that in 2024 social welfare inspectors can still turn up at a woman's door and invade her privacy to effectively check for men under the bed. A 2020 investigation by the Irish Examiner found that: "In many cases the women are left feeling small and worthless. The Social Welfare inspectors have all the power, and in some case they abuse it. The mums claiming the single parent allowance are left between a rock and a hard place - make a complaint and risk losing a payment, or just stay quiet and take it." The newspaper spoke to women who said: "... inspectors would come to their homes unannounced, searching each room, sometimes opening wardrobes looking for men's clothes and questioning them about cars parked outside." Rather than outlawing this misogyny, which reeks of the squinting-windows Catholic Ireland of old, the Department continues it. Between 2018 and 2020 alone, 32,559 recipients of the one-parent family payment scheme were examined by social welfare inspectors, 2,327 were cut off, and another 3,665 had their payment rate reduced on review.

To return to the subject matter of the Bill, it is unfortunately the case that even if 100% of child maintenance were collected, there would still be significant poverty and inequality in this country. The tens of thousands of children in two-parent families who are living in poverty, despite receiving financial support from both of their parents, are proof of that. As a socialist, I do not believe that children's standard of living should be dependent on how wealthy their parents are. A genuinely left, socialist government would directly eliminate child poverty. It would provide high-quality, universal public services, such as housing, childcare, healthcare and public transport, free of charge to all. It would increase social welfare payments such that they would provide a decent standard of living and it would legislate for living wages and mandatory trade union recognition so that workers could fight for higher wages. That would benefit all children, regardless of their parents' income or family circumstances. This would be funded by taxing big business and the wealthy and taking key sectors of the economy, such as the banks, into democratic public ownership.

Oxfam's wealth report, published earlier this week, showed how a tax on the millionaires and billionaires in this country could raise even more than €9 billion every year. It showed that just two billionaires in this country have the same wealth as 50% of the country or half the entire population. That €9 billion alone would pay for abolishing childcare fees, increasing all basic social welfare payments and pensions to €350, and making medicines and public transport free. A wealth tax would raise much more funds to abolish child poverty than placing attachment orders on people's social welfare payments as the Government proposes to do in the near future.

I welcome the provisions in the Bill that repeal the Department's responsibility to pursue what are called "liable relatives" for maintenance. This will be dealt with separately by the Department of Justice. We will watch very closely to see what is proposed in that regard. I clearly state in advance of that, while we wait, People Before Profit will not support punitive measures, such as the proposals for suspended sentences, to be used against people who do not pay maintenance. We fear this could have a serious impact on people on low incomes and vulnerable people suffering from addiction or mental health problems. We do not consider that sort of punitive approach to be the answer.

Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett

Deputy Murphy has made many of my points. We welcome the Bill. Single parents suffer disproportionately from poverty. That has been well documented and remained consistently the case for many years now. The fact that the amount of maintenance single parents might receive, the vast majority of whom are women, is means-tested and then impacts on their social welfare payments is completely unacceptable, when we have such a disproportionate level of poverty among lone parents. We very much welcome this long-overdue move to decouple maintenance from social welfare payments.

I also add, however, that even this improvement will still leave many lone parents in poverty because our basic rates of social welfare, whether it is the one-parent family payment or other social welfare payments, are below the poverty level. Significant numbers of our lone parents, including pensioners and other people who because of disability or other reasons, such as losing their jobs, are forced to live in poverty. It is our view that the basic social welfare and pension payments should increase to bring everybody at least above the poverty line. I do not see how in a society as wealthy as ours, one of the wealthiest in the world, that it can be justifiable to leave hundreds of thousands of people still living in poverty. I also take this opportunity to repeat the call of the disability community to add a premium payment. Our view is that everybody should be getting at least €300 a week in pension or social welfare payments to lift them out of poverty and people with disabilities should also get a premium payment above that. During the Covid crisis, with the €350 figure, we acknowledged that nobody could or should be expected to live on less than that. There is no reason to continue to leave so many people, many of them lone parents, languishing in poverty.

While we welcome the Bill and the decoupling of maintenance payments from social welfare, there is a hell of a lot more to do if we are to lift lone parents and many others in our society out of poverty.

I will elaborate on a point because I noticed Deputy Durkan had a wry smile on his face when Deputy Murphy referred to the recent Oxfam report and the extraordinary levels of wealth concentrated in the hands of a tiny proportion of Irish society. Oxfam is only confirming what the Central Bank has confirmed. This is just in case Deputy Durkan is a little bit sceptical-----

Deputy Bernard J. Durkan

Just a part of it, not all of it.

Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett

Yes, sure. If the Deputy is sceptical and if he does not believe Oxfam, he should check out the Central Bank. It may be a source that the Deputy might consider more reliable. I believe Oxfam is very reliable. The Central Bank has started to produce something we have long asked for, which is figures on the distribution of wealth in this country. In its quarterly bulletins at the beginning of each year, the Central Bank has always shown the level of net wealth and assets in the country but has never shown the distribution. Essentially, we had to extrapolate from old studies on wealth distribution to work out what proportion of the wealth was in the hands of different deciles of our population. The Central Bank has confirmed with a report - from I believe the end of 2022 - what we, Oxfam and others have been saying for many years and the bank will do this on an ongoing basis. The report confirmed that the richest 10% of our population has approximately 54% of all of the wealth. This is massive. The net wealth in this country is now in excess of €1 trillion. One can do the maths. It is an extraordinary concentration of wealth in the hands of a tiny group of people. This is the issue that needs to be addressed. There is more than enough wealth in Irish society to lift people out of poverty and to address many of the problems we have with the lack of resources for housing, infrastructure, amenities, and for decent pay and conditions for working people, many of whom have seen themselves hammered with the cost-of-living crisis over the past few years. The money is there but it is concentrated in the hands of a tiny few. Now we have the figures to back that up. A wealth tax could begin to address that and redistribute that wealth in a fair way.

As the Minister, Deputy Humphreys is present, I have a final couple of comments on the issue of addressing poverty and the immediacy of this. I was not aware of a particular issue, but have been made aware by a number of pensioners who have come to my clinic over the cold snap we are experiencing. There is a provision in the electricity credit measure, which is the €150 payments people have been getting off their electricity bills, whereby if the customer does not reach a certain threshold of electricity use, he or she does not get the payment. I was quite shocked because elderly people have come to me this week who had made sure their electricity use did not reach the €150 threshold because they could not afford to pay anything above it. They assumed they were going to get the €150 credit so they kept their use to just below €150 only to discover that because they had been economising on their use of electricity they were not getting the payment at all. That is pretty terrible. We can see how cold it is out there now and people who are cutting back on their use of electricity to heat their homes or for other uses of electricity are now not getting the payment precisely because they were cutting back as they could not afford it and were afraid of the prospects of using too much electricity. I believe if people do not get those credits, they do not get a lot of the other stuff as well. I ask the Government to immediately address this. It is just grossly unfair.

I have another ask of the Minister, which again is related to the cost of living and the cold snap and is to do with some of the additional payments the Government is giving to address the cost of living. I refer to the people who are on so called "short-term payments", although some of these payments are not that short term. If someone is on any of the short-term payments such as illness benefit, job seeker's allowance for less than nine months, the back-to-education allowance, the enterprise allowance and so on - and this is not an exhaustive list - he or she is not getting any of the additional once-off cost-of-living payments or fuel allowance. That is not right. Those people are on the same levels of low income as everybody who gets the payments, yet they have the same need to heat their homes in the cold snap in the winter and all the rest of it. Just because they are on a shorter-term payment, have just lost their job or are on a back-to-education scheme or an enterprise allowance scheme, they are having to go through this cold snap with all the extortionate cost-of-living increases and the inflation increases without the support of the once-off payments, the fuel allowance and so on that have been given to everybody else. That is not fair and in many cases that is actually penalising people for doing things like getting back into enterprise, trying to get to back to work, or trying to upskill themselves. Those who just happen to have lost their job recently and are no doubt trying to get back into it work are being penalised because they lost their job. That is not fair. I ask the Minister to address it and even at this late stage to give this cohort the payments that have been given to others.

Deputy Bernard J. Durkan

I welcome this particularly important legislation. I just want to make a few comments on the opinions expressed by the previous speaker in respect of a report that was published recently by Oxfam. The Deputy did not quote the whole conclusion. The conclusion was the same as it was nearly 50 years ago to the effect that 80% of the wealth was owned by 10% of the population. It then went on to say that 80% of the taxation was paid by 10% of the population. The Deputy left that bit out and I do not know why that happened.

In the company of a certain gentleman who was a millionaire or billionaire Oxfam was involved a few years ago in travelling around the globe explaining to the people of the world how Ireland was a tax haven and how it had to be addressed as a matter of some urgency-----

Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett

Very good.

Deputy Bernard J. Durkan

-----and with which I strongly disagreed. Those who called for this tax haven to be stopped said nothing at all when we needed - in the worst way possible - everything we had after the financial crash and following and during Covid. When people quote from these situations, it is a good thing to tell the whole story so as not to confuse the public. Sometimes the public does get confused and might believe it. I happened to be in a position where I could confront said gentleman and his cohorts at the time but for some unknown reason the management of the situation at the time ensured that he escaped from potential cross questioning. There will be other times and I certainly have not forgotten it anyway.

Sadly, we were on our uppers at the end of the financial crash and this was the solution that some of these guys had. We should not forget that.

An Ceann Comhairle

It is not often you lose your quarry, Deputy Durkan.

Deputy Bernard J. Durkan

I know. It was a few years ago but it will not happen again. I welcome the legislation. Contrary to what Members opposite have said. this is not the first time we have visited this type of situation, as the Minister and the Ceann Comhairle well know. We remedied this particular problem many years ago to a certain extent when the courts made a decision in situations where there was a separation and people went their separate ways. In some cases, it was acrimonious and partners who were in the position of providing maintenance to their family as ordered by the courts did not do so and made themselves artificially unemployed so they would not have to do so.

They left the children and the mothers in a desperate state. On top of this, there were many situations where there was colossal home abuse, with physical and mental abuse that went on and on to such an extent that the mother and the children were afraid to ask for their rights or to look for them because of the consequence to them as a result. This is still going on and we all deal with these types of cases. This week I have already dealt with a couple of such cases. The abuse is of such a threatening nature that the children or mother will do anything to avoid it. Occasionally there is a situation where one person will fight back and try to assert their rights, and rightly so.

I fought this when I was in the Department and we changed it to a great extent but it drifted back in again in the aftermath of the financial crash. We have to be alert all of the time to watch all of the benefits that were fought for over the years by all of us. It is as if someone with a rope is drawing them back again. We look around and we do not know they have gone. This happens. I was dealing with a case the other day where appalling physical and mental abuse has been meted out to the unfortunate mother and children. It should not be happening. The result of it is visible when looking at the family. It is breaking them down mentally and physically to an appalling extent.

When we combated it previously we found it was possible to do so on a one-to-one basis. Deciding officers in all Departments need to be told about this but particularly in this Department. Where a mother finds herself vulnerable with nothing to pay the bills and the offending partner knows this is the situation, she is on a hiding to nothing. It is appalling what happens. Even this year, we have such situations. Somebody was told they would have money coming from the child benefit the following week. This is what a deciding officer said to someone. I am bowled over by that. The fact of the matter is that she and the children are entitled to that as well.

I remember an issue regarding an official in Kildare County Council once upon a time, and the Ceann Comhairle knows of this too. A national wage agreement gave council housing tenants an increase of a fiver. Because of the differential rent, the system took back the fiver even though it had nothing to do with it at all and it was not entitled to do so. Only a proportion of the fiver with regard to the total income was entitled to be taken back.

The point is that we must do a lot more in this area. I will not go into the most recent issue I have been dealing with, whereby women who are mothers of children, sometimes with large families of children, are subject to appalling treatment by the system. It is not the social system in this case but the family law system. We need to examine these situations and ask ourselves how long does this have to go on. We must remember that under the Constitution, everyone has rights of one kind or another and to some extent or another. If we allow a situation to drift we will allow for a situation that will be highly embarrassing in the future.

Deputy Ruairí Ó Murchú

I welcome the legislation. I commend the work done on this by Deputies Kerrane and Brady from my party. We all welcome the fact that child maintenance payments will no longer be assessed as means for social welfare and the discontinuation of the liable relative provision. It has been a problem for a long time. If we go through the entire social protection system we see a number of anomalies. People get caught in them. Sometimes we have really hammered down on those who have really needed support. We have probably created a pile of unintended consequences. I am very glad to see this will go.

Many of my colleagues, particularly Deputy Ó Laoghaire, have spoken about the need for a properly operating child maintenance service. We would all agree on anything that can be done about placing the onus of legal ramifications or financial burdens on single parents, who definitely have enough work to do in raising their child or children. We all know the difficulty of going through the court system. I ask that this issue be expedited. What we need to see is a sensible solution to the overall circumstances we have.

The idea of doing this is to deal with the issue of poverty. We know that single-parent families are often under severe pressures. This is probably a small enough intervention. We all know that a large number of families need intervention earlier than it happens to ensure the right of children to be all that they can be. Earlier we were dealing with further education and all of the new roadmaps with regard to apprenticeships, post-leaving certificate courses and degrees. Apprenticeships are no longer the traditional apprenticeships only. There is a large cohort of children and young adults who are well removed from this educational sphere. We have to do a far better job at an earlier stage. Many of these children come from disadvantaged communities. We definitely could make an intervention that would have an impact by empowering and facilitating families and ensuring we can bridge the gap and can allow people to get onto this route out of poverty.

The Minister and I have spoken many times about family carers and the fact we need to take a look at how we deal with this issue. I accept there are big differences between the supports provided to many family carers. We probably could not put a cost on some of them. We need to make sure people do not get caught in these anomalies either. A review of disability payments is ongoing. This involves another cohort of people who at times have fallen between stools. If we are speaking about dealing with poverty and facilitating all citizens to be what they can be, we need to look at these across the board. This is a good start but there is a lot more to do.

Deputy Richard O'Donoghue

I welcome the work that has been done on the Bill. More work can be done on it but it is heading in the right direction. Many means-tested applications take maintenance payments into account. For example, medical card applications require maintenance payments to be included for the means test. How many people have been denied medical cards due to maintenance payments bringing them over the threshold, even though that maintenance is for the children and young adults dependent on it? Legal aid costs of divorce in Ireland average at between €10,000 and €20,000 per spouse. Thankfully, legal aid exists in Ireland but maintenance payments for children and young adults are taken into account in the means test. Will there be a system to reimburse people whose applications were rejected because of the maintenance payments being included in the means test? This needs to be looked at. Maintenance payments are for the well-being of children and young adults.

Another issue is the struggle of single-parent families.

Some 57% of homeless families in this country are single-parent families. In situations where a sole breadwinner is mandated to cover a mortgage, the Department of Social Protection accepts that mortgage payments are means, treating them similarly to maintenance. I know the debate is on the Social Welfare (Liable Relatives and Child Maintenance) Bill but I wish to raise those who are not covered by it as well. I refer to people who are separated. When one looks at it, they are bringing maintenance into the equation as well.

With an average mortgage payment ranging between €1,020 and €1,361, deductions from social welfare payments place families at a significant risk of poverty. The weekly household disregard, which was set in 1997 at €95.23, fails to align with current housing costs, further intensifying the financial challenges faced by these families.

Focus Ireland provides an illustrative case involving a €300 mortgage payment. Before the High Court ruling, the assessment treated it as means of €27.39 but post ruling the assessment increased substantially to €103.39. The significant loss of €75 in social welfare support is particularly impactful on single-parent families already facing financial challenges. I believe that mortgage payments should not be regarded as means as they target single-parent families in reducing their already minimal income. This is the case with families who are in the process of splitting up.

We have mentioned the single-family payment and women. Some 99% of the cases in our office relate to women but we also have male single parents. I would like that to be recognised. While they are in a minority, they must be acknowledged because we have fantastic parents out there, male and female, who are doing the best for their children.

This legislation is going in the right direction but it needs to be looked at in its entirety to make sure it covers all family members. We must look again at inflation costs in this country. Everything must reflect that going forward. I commend the Minister on what she has done with the legislation so far and look forward to the implementation of further legislation in the future.

Deputy Thomas Pringle

Thank you, a Cheann Comhairle, for the opportunity to speak on the Social Welfare (Liable Relatives and Child Maintenance) Bill.

I welcome the legislation and its intention to change the social welfare means test so that child maintenance payments will no longer be assessed as means. It is totally inappropriate to ever treat child maintenance as a household income when it is intended specifically for the child. This change is long overdue. In 2022, CSO figures showed that 43.5% of one-parent families were living in deprivation in comparison with 17.7% of people in two-parent households. In addition, 23.8% of one-parent families were at risk of poverty and 14.1% were in consistent poverty.

Recent findings from Growing Up in Ireland show higher levels of disadvantage among one-parent families and that financial strain is substantially higher for one-parent families, with 21% experiencing financial hardship. Lone-parent families are also consistently at a greater risk of homelessness and are significantly overrepresented in emergency accommodation. These figures clearly show that Government policy designed to tackle poverty is failing. In 2022, 17% of Irish households were headed by one parent, with more than five times more one-parent mother families than one-parent father families. In my constituency of Donegal, 6,410 families with children were headed by single mothers and 1,182 by single fathers.

There is no doubt there is a national narrative around family at the moment given the upcoming referendums on family and care in March. Many people in this country believe they are pro-women and pro-equality. They may be shocked to read the statistics on the notable and pervasive gender pay gap and the poverty rate for lone parents. They may also be shocked to hear others make sexist or misogynist remarks about single mothers or maternity leave being a holiday. Sadly, there are many who will not be shocked by these conversations or statistics. I refer to those who have first-hand experience of what it is like to be a lone parent in a country where it has taken us until 2024 to consider changing the legal definition of family beyond the scope of marriage.

The term "single mother" is almost a loaded one. One must ask why that is. They are the parents who stayed, yet our misogynistic society uses that against them, while the other parent escapes stigma. To add insult to injury, the parent who is raising the child then has to chase down financial contributions from the other parent. Worse still is the fact that this is considered as means when assessing a social welfare claim. The fact that the burden has been left to the caring parent for this long is an absolute disgrace, as if the person did not have enough on their plate as a lone parent. I am glad this has been addressed to some extent in the legislation, although for some it is too late.

It is disappointing that the Bill did not include the committee's pre-legislative scrutiny recommendation to set up a statutory child maintenance agency as a first step before progression to family courts. That is despite the fact that the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission stated that reliable and adequate provision of child maintenance can be an effective poverty reduction measure and the UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women recommended that Ireland consider establishing a statutory maintenance authority and prescribing amounts for child maintenance in order to reduce the burden on women of having to litigate to seek child maintenance orders. The justice committee also recommended that a statutory child maintenance agency be established.

It is time that Ireland started to show due respect to lone-parent families and also to carers, the majority of whom are also women and many of whom also experience significant financial strain. I do not understand why carers, who are saving the State hundreds of millions in costs every year, are actively hemmed into poverty by our social welfare means-testing policy. A parent who cares for a disabled child is allowed to work 18 hours per week and to earn no more than €450 per week, as implemented in the last budget. This implies that these circumstances would only occur to those on a smaller income or in a position to carefully monitor hours. Let us consider the ramifications of that. Disabled people are already more impacted by poverty than other sections of the population. Disabled children and their parent carers are having their financial situation curtailed. The Government should remember that carers are providing the State with assistance, not the other way around.

As with the situation regarding maintenance, it is time we stopped creating social policy with the few opportunists who may find a way to take advantage in mind and start ensuring we treat all our citizens with respect and empathy. First and foremost, this is what needs to be addressed, if we are serious about creating an equal society for women in 2024.

Minister for Social Protection (Deputy Heather Humphreys)

I thank all the Deputies for their contributions. I acknowledge Deputy Ó Cuív's commitment to the means test and the need to continually review it. It is something he has raised with me on many occasions. I look forward to receiving the report on the means test shortly.

We all know that lone parents are a particularly vulnerable group, which is why I am very pleased to bring forward this legislation. I thank Deputies for their support. As a result of the provisions in the Bill, my Department will no longer assess child maintenance payments in the means test for social welfare schemes. As I mentioned earlier, this will be of direct benefit to an estimated 16,000 lone parents, at a cost of some €10 million a year. Some people will receive a higher payment while others will qualify for a payment that they would not have if we did not make these changes.

The "liability to maintain family" provisions in social welfare legislation are being revoked by this legislation. This means the Department will no longer seek to recoup a portion of claims costs from the non-resident parent when a person is in receipt of the one-parent family payment.

As Deputies will be aware, under family law, parents have obligations regarding the maintenance of their children. Nothing in this Bill changes or undermines any of those obligations. I, too, acknowledge the vast majority of parents who meet those obligations.

On an administrative basis, the liable relative provisions have not been applied to new claims for one-parent family payment since late 2022 when the Government decided to revoke the provisions. In addition, last year I signed regulations to remove the requirements for recipients of the one-parent family payment and jobseeker’s transition payment to make efforts to seek maintenance from the child’s other parent.

This means there is now no question of a person having to go to court just to satisfy an eligibility requirement for one of these payments. In making these amendments, we are decoupling child maintenance from the social welfare system. There are three significant changes that will have a positive impact on the lives of lone parents. My colleague, the Minister for Justice, Deputy McEntee, is bringing forward reforms in the family law area that will also be of benefit to lone parents. Taken together, these represent a significant suite of reforms across the two systems that will address concerns that have been raised over the years.

As I explained in my opening remarks, I will bring forward amendments relating to the supports available for the beneficiaries of temporary protection. These changes will be more closely aligned to other EU member states. The impact of these amendments will be that new arrivals from Ukraine staying in designated State-provided accommodation will receive a weekly payment of €38.80. The Government has decided this and bringing it forward through this Bill is the fastest legislative vehicle to get the measures enacted. People will have the opportunity on Committee Stage to raise issues in this regard.

Some other issues were raised as well, including setting up a child maintenance agency. The Child Maintenance Review Group did not reach a consensus on this point. The Minister for Justice, however, has announced significant reforms to make the family courts system more accessible and more family-friendly. We need to see how those reforms bed in. As part of these reforms, the Department of Justice undertook a review of the enforcement of child maintenance orders. The Minister published that report last week. It contains 26 recommendations, including measures to examine how we can strengthen the enforcement of child maintenance payments via attachment orders and so on. The answer to all of this is that if people are supposed to pay, they should pay. I would like to see such payments deducted at source if people are working. People should just get on with it and stop messing about.

The Minister wishes to progress these proposals as quickly as possible. There have been some calls for Ireland to introduce a similar-styled child maintenance service to what is in place in the UK and Northern Ireland. It is important to say that an independent report from the national audit office in the UK found that since the agency was established there the estimated proportion of separated families without any child maintenance arrangements has increased from 25% in 2011-12 to 44% in 2019-20. The amount of unpaid maintenance owed to parents increased by more than £1 million weekly to a total of £440 million as of October 2021. Outstanding arrears will grow indefinitely and are forecast to reach £1 billion by March 2031 at the current rates. If we look at this, we can see that there are an awful lot of complaints about that service in the UK and how it is working. In fairness, I can see, therefore, why the review group found it difficult to reach a consensus on this. The last thing we want to do is to spend a lot of taxpayers' money and waste a lot of time and then end up back where we were at square one.

I just wish to also address another matter. Deputy Boyd Barrett asked about the use of an electricity usage threshold for the electricity credits. I will have to refer this to the Department of the Minister, Deputy Eamon Ryan. I was not aware of this and I do not think that it was the intention but I will refer this query back to the Minister.

Deputy Paul Murphy made comments about social welfare inspectors visiting houses. My Department repeatedly sought details of those alleged cases that were reported in the media in the context of anonymous sources but that information was never provided to us. None of those media reports has ever been backed up by facts. I just want to put this on the record because the social welfare inspectors in my Department do not have an easy job sometimes. As far as I am concerned, however, they do a good job. I just wish to ensure that people are aware of this. I have heard those allegations previously and I do not want to have the good name of our social welfare inspectors tarnished in any way.

An Ceann Comhairle

I thank all the Deputies who participated in the debate.

Question put and agreed to.

Dáil Éireann debate - Thursday, 18 Jan 2024

Social Welfare (Liable Relatives and Child Maintenance) Bill 2023: Second Stage

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 18 Jan 2024