Joint Committee on Social Protection, Community and Rural Development and the Islands debate

General Scheme of the Social Welfare (Child Maintenance and Liable Relatives) Bill 2023: Discussion

An Cathaoirleach

We now commence in public session. I have received apologies from Senator Eugene Murphy. Members participating in the meeting remotely are required to do so from within the precincts of Leinster House only. I welcome the witnesses. I remind members and witnesses to ensure their mobile phones are switched off or on silent mode.

Witnesses are protected by absolute privilege in respect of the presentations they make to the committee. This means they have an absolute defence against any defamation action for anything they say at this meeting. However, they are expected not to abuse this privilege and it is my duty to ensure this privilege is not abused. Witnesses are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against any person or entity by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable, or otherwise engage in speech that might be regarded as damaging to the good name of the person or entity. Therefore, if their statements are potentially defamatory in respect of an identifiable person or entity, witnesses will be directed to discontinue their remarks. It is imperative they comply with any such direction.

Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against any person or entity outside the Houses or an official either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.

The committee will now consider pre-legislative scrutiny of the general scheme of the social welfare (child maintenance and liable relatives) Bill 2023. The proposed Bill aims to exclude child maintenance payments from social welfare means tests. It also seeks to ensure that lone parents will no longer need to make efforts to seek maintenance to access social welfare payments. This has delayed receipt of social assistance support and caused hardship for many families in the past. The committee supports the implementation of the recommendations of the report of the child maintenance review group regarding the social welfare system and welcomes these changes through this proposed legislation. The committee has released a call for submissions and responses will be included in the pre-legislative scrutiny report of the committee.

I welcome to the meeting today representatives from the Department of Social Protection, namely, Mr. Rónán Hession, assistant secretary with responsibility for working age and family policy, Ms Dearbháil Nic Giolla Mhicíl, principal officer in the area of families and children policy, and Ms Marina Louarn, assistant principal in the area of one parent and child income policy.

I invite Mr. Hession to make his opening statement.

Mr. Rónán Hession

I thank the joint committee for the invitation to attend. I have responsibility for working age income supports in the Department and I am joined by my colleagues whom the Cathaoirleach already introduced.

In line with the programme for Government commitment, the Government established a child maintenance review group to examine certain issues in relation 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 social welfare system, the current provisions regarding liable relatives and the establishment of a child maintenance agency in Ireland. The report of the child maintenance review group was published in November 2022. The Government has approved changes to implement the group’s recommendations regarding social welfare as follows. Child maintenance payments will no longer be included in social welfare means tests, the “efforts to seek maintenance” requirement for certain payments will no longer apply and the liable relatives provisions operated by our Department should no longer apply.

There was no consensus among the group's members in relation to the establishment of a child maintenance agency. This matter falls under the remit of the Department of Justice and is not within the scope of the draft legislation before the committee today. Since the publication of the report, however, several measures have been brought forward by the Minister for Justice to reform the family law system.

In terms of the three main reforms arising from the review group report, the combined effect will be to decouple social welfare from child maintenance. First, the 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 some €10 million a year. In some cases, this will mean that people will receive a higher payment. In other cases, it will mean that people will now qualify for a payment for the first time.

Second, we are removing the requirement for recipients of the one-parent family payment and jobseeker’s transitional payment to make efforts to seek maintenance from their 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 for which representative groups have been calling.

Third, the liable relative provisions will no longer be applied in respect of the one-parent family payment. This means the Department will no longer seek to recoup a portion of claim costs from the non-resident parent in these cases. 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. Removing the liable relative provisions does not replace or supersede the primary responsibility of parents to maintain their children.

Pending the introduction of the necessary legislation, the Department has already implemented some of the recommended changes on an administrative basis. We are no longer applying the efforts to seek maintenance requirement to one-parent family payment and jobseeker's transitional payment. This had been done on an administrative basis since the end of last year. However, the Minister has since signed a regulation to remove this requirement from the statutory provisions. In addition, on an administrative basis, the liable relative provisions are not being applied to new claims for the one-parent family payment.

I will now outline the main provisions of the draft Social Welfare (Child Maintenance and Liable Relatives Provisions) Bill, which will amend the Social Welfare Consolidation Act 2005. Head 1 provides for the deletion of references to Part 12 of the Act, the liability to maintain family, from the definition of "social welfare inspector" in section 2(1) and from the interpretation of "liable relative" in section 2(7). As a result, a social welfare inspector will no longer have any role under Part 12 of the Act which is being repealed. These amendments are required as a consequence of the repeal of Part 12, as set out in head 4, which is the main repealing provision.

Head 2 relates to social welfare inspectors. It removes several references to Part 12 of the Act, liability to maintain family, from section 250 and as a result social welfare inspectors will have no role under Part 12 which, as I have explained, is being repealed.

Head 3 relates to decisions by deciding officers and removes a reference to Part 12 of the Act from section 300(2). As a result, deciding officers will have no role under Part 12.

Head 4 repeals Part 12, liability to maintain family. This encompasses sections 344 to 358, inclusive, which all refer to the obligations of the liable parent to maintain the family and deals with the District Court and attachment orders. This is the substantive amendment required to implement the review group recommendation on liable relatives.

Head 5 inserts a new definition of "maintenance payments" into Part 1 of Schedule 3, the purpose of which is to ensure that child maintenance payments are no longer assessed as means for the purposes of any social welfare means test.

Head 6 reflects the exclusion of child maintenance payments in the new definition of "maintenance payments" while ensuring that the housing disregard continues to apply to any other maintenance payments. This applies to the means testing provisions for the wide range of schemes listed in this head. These amendments are consequential on the change to the definition of "maintenance payments" as provided in head 5.

These changes will decouple child maintenance from social welfare and will provide material benefits for the lone parents affected. We are happy to assist the joint committee with any questions.

An Cathaoirleach

I thank Mr. Hession. I want to apologise to the public and the members of the committee for the truncated time that has been made available to consider the general scheme of this particular Bill.

I thank Mr. Hession and his team in the Department for their engagement with our officials in trying to facilitate, insofar as was possible, some type of a productive engagement with the public on the provisions in this. I understand that we have received a number of public submissions on it. I thank Mr. Hession and his officials for engaging with the committee on that.

I now open up for questions.

Deputy Marc Ó Cathasaigh

It is a rare example of a review and a report being acted on and implemented. It is heartening to see it. It is relatively straightforward. I am very pleased to see it. We know from various Economic and Social Research Institute, ESRI, reports that one of the areas where we find consistent poverty most often is among lone parents and children who grow up in those families. Anything that helps ameliorate that situation and allows more money and support to flow into those family types is entirely welcome.

I have one question. It is absolutely, completely welcome, correct and humane that this business of having to seek the maintenance has been removed as a requirement. The one worry I have – perhaps the witnesses can advise me if this has already been in place on an administrative basis – is that there are some people who will not live up to their responsibilities as a parent unless they are brought to court. I would not like to think that there is anything within this Bill that would help absolve people of that financial responsibility. I note there was not a consensus reached around the establishment of a child maintenance agency, which might assuage my fears in that regard. Since this has been introduced on an administrative basis and then the Minister, as was said, signed the regulation to remove the requirement, have we seen any fall-off in the other parent stepping up to the mark and making those maintenance contributions? That kind of unintended consequence would be my chief concern. I certainly do not want people feeling they can step away from their financial responsibilities as a parent. Have we seen any evidence of that to date? Will something be required to balance out this provision in the legislation to make sure that we do not have that situation?

Mr. Rónán Hession

On the efforts to seek maintenance, what had been applying up to now is a one-parent family payment. For a person was applying for a payment from our Department, going back to the early 1990s, the regime that had been in place was that we wanted to make sure that person got as much maintenance as possible through the system. Some of it would qualify as income, which would then affect that person’s payment. That was the intention behind it. However, what happened in practice was that people came to us looking for a payment who were probably already having difficulty getting payment from the other parent and had to go back to court, not so much to get the payment itself but to go through a process to satisfy our Department. The review group found that did not improve the situation and did not lead to any increase in maintenance; it just created an extra, stressful step that was best removed. Obviously, this is a very recent change. To be honest, the data on maintenance, as we see in the review group report, is not great through the court system. It would not come through us, necessarily. It would be more through the court service.

The Department of Justice is doing a review of enforcement and looking at those mechanisms. As I understand it, that is close to finalisation. We might get some insight from that. Broadly speaking, our experience over the years was that this was not a very effective way of getting the money flowing from one parent to the other, rather, it was just an extra step. As the Deputy said, this is already a cohort at risk of poverty. They are parenting alone with many other pressures. It did not serve its intended purpose to lead to increased maintenance payments.

Therefore, we do not think that will be a consequence of this but it is too hard to say in terms of data.

We will see what the Department of Justice comes up with in its report.

Deputy Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire

Cuirim fáilte roimh chinn an Bhille seo. Reachtaíocht luachmhar a bheidh ann, agus beidh an-tionchar aici i measc na teaghlaigh atá i gceist. I welcome the heads of the Bill. It is an important reform. It is something my predecessor, Deputy Claire Kerrane, did a lot of work on over a number of years trying to highlight it, and I am glad we are moving forward.

This is not something for the Department to address but, as I have the opportunity, I will put on record that, while I know this relates more to the Department of Justice, it is my view that a child maintenance agency is the best approach. The circumstances of this vary enormously from the highly contested to the relatively amicable. My fear is that while, obviously, the courts as an option should and will always exist for the highly contested cases, the approach that is being recommended and that the Government is arriving at will create situations in which what could have been amicable ends up being relatively contested because it is brought into the legal sphere. I think that is a mistake. I think there is scope for an agency to facilitate where there is a co-operative relationship. That can be up and down and can vary and so on, but I think that scope should exist with the option always to progress to the family courts. I just put that on record in respect of the agency. The issue of whether maintenance should be included in means tests is somewhat separate in any event, and it is important to proceed with that regardless.

I have two questions and they are kind of related. On an administrative basis, is this already being applied?

Probably not but let me check that.

Deputy Joan Collins

I thank the witnesses. From talking to a few of the organisations, they view the main aspects of the Bill as being about child maintenance payments and disregarding the means test for social welfare payments. It is no longer required for applicants for the one-parent family payment and jobseeker's transitional payment to make efforts to seek maintenance from their child's other parent. The Bill allows that it is no longer included in means testing. It has not removed other forms of maintenance for means tests, that is, mortgage repayments. Maybe Mr. Hession could come in on that.

The removal of the liable relatives provision and State inspections of maintenance means there is no longer a State function to enforce maintenance. Instead, it would be up to the individual parents to go to the courts to secure maintenance. Is there an outlined plan on this new system, or lack of system, and how it would work? The two main concerns I got from the feedback were that the dissolving of the liable relative unit removes only the State enforcement arm for maintenance and that there is no information given on how a system solely based in the courts would work or how it would deal with the major influx into the courts.

Another point made was that when lone parents' youngest child turns seven, non-resident parents receive a letter saying they need to switch payment of maintenance from the Department to the other parent. When that happens at the moment, there is a 60% drop in maintenance payments after this letter due to non-payment and there is a 50% drop in overall maintenance paid after the youngest turns seven. For every €100, €50 is now recouped by the Department. There is concern that when the liable relatives unit is dissolved and every non-resident parent receives a letter stating the removal of State enforcement of maintenance, we will see that 50% repeated across every lone parent family. What measures are being put in place to ensure custodial parents do not lose out financially when the liable relatives unit is abolished? Have additional resources been allocated to the District Court to support parents who have to seek maintenance when the liable relatives unit is abolished? Why are mortgage payments being treated differently from child maintenance? Does the Department expect parents to forgo court-ordered mortgage payments to access the social welfare payment they would be entitled to? Those are the three main questions I wanted to ask on this Bill.

Mr. Rónán Hession

I might ask Ms Nic Giolla Mhicíl to speak on the mortgage point. On the question around liable relatives, I will explain how the liable relatives provision has worked and what it is for. The liable relatives provision is there as a way for the State to recoup some of the costs of the social welfare claim from the non-resident parent. It is not a form of maintenance. There are two ways that can be paid. It can be paid to the Department directly but in most cases it is paid via the lone parent and that is reflected in their reduced claim costs. This came up a bit in the review group discussion. We had to clarify that the liable relatives provision is not a form of maintenance payment.

This applies to the one-parent family payment, not to the jobseeker's transitional payment. The letter that goes out when the child turns seven is to advise the non-resident parent that the liable relative regime no longer applies because it only applies to the one-parent family payment. We are very clear in that letter that this does not affect the parent's responsibility in terms of maintenance. The maintenance arrangements are completely separate to the liable relatives regime. They do not change. They are set by the court and, as a Department, we have no involvement in either the process whereby maintenance agreements are put in place or enforced. We have no role in that. This is a separate, parallel mechanism to enable the Department and the State to recoup some of the claim costs from the non-resident parent. That will no longer apply. That is a money flow from the non-resident parent to the Department, either directly or through the lone parent. It is not a form of maintenance payment. The letter that goes out when the child is aged seven is not related to the non-payment of maintenance.

The Deputy asked whether extra resources would be provided. The Minister for Justice announced, at the time of the launch of the child maintenance review group report, a suite of reforms to family law, including the establishment of family law courts and dedicated family law judges. That programme of work is being done by the Department of Justice. It is also doing a review of enforcement which is, as I understand it, close to finalisation.

What we are removing here is child maintenance payments. The review group was purely looking at child maintenance and the recommendations in respect of child maintenance. Spousal maintenance and other forms of maintenance are not in scope here. I will ask Ms Nic Giolla Mhicíl to speak on the mortgages point.

Ms Dearbháil Nic Giolla Mhicíl

The key point is that what we are talking about here is removing child maintenance. At the moment, the Department does not make a distinction between child maintenance and other types of maintenance. There is a 50% disregard but all maintenance payments are treated in the same way. There is also a housing disregard, where applicable. As part of the new regime we will have to devise a way of making that distinction between child and other maintenance payments. In some cases, particularly divorce cases where people have gone to court, they will have a court order specifying a certain amount for the child and a certain amount for the spouse. Sometimes people have a mediated agreement making that kind of specification as well, but in other cases we will have to, as part of our new arrangements, define a way of making that distinction. That is something we are looking at, with the intention of doing it in regulations because that is where the current detail is at the moment.

Deputy Joan Collins

Is that going to be done concurrent with the legislation? Will those regulations be changed as this Bill goes through the Dáil and is implemented?

Ms Dearbháil Nic Giolla Mhicíl

Yes, the intention is that we would have everything done and ready to start at the same time.

Chairman

Before we move on, in fairness, an issue that Deputy Kerrane raised consistently when she was a member of this committee was that of a child maintenance service and the establishment of one. Our remit in relation to this is effectively evaporating with the enactment of this legislation. It is now really the responsibility of the Department of Justice. To come back to what Deputy Ó Cathasaigh said earlier, in the context of the statistics that Deputy Collins has just provided, there is the opposite of a chilling effect in relation to the enactment of this legislation. It is sending out a message that the State is not going to pursue its element of the recoupment of maintenance that is being paid under the one-parent family scheme. I know that is not the intention of this legislation but the committee as a whole should write to the Minister for Justice and the justice committee expressing our reservations regarding the impact of this legislation. We should point out that there is a legal responsibility on the other parent to make legally binding maintenance payments in relation to children and that we are anxious this is pursued by the justice committee and adequate resources are provided to the Courts Service by the Minister for Justice. With the agreement of this committee we will write to both the Minister for Justice and our counterpart committee seeking to have this specific issue addressed.

I am sure it will come up in the course of Second Stage and Committee Stage of the enactment of this legislation. It is the firm view of members present, which was also strongly articulated by Deputy Kerrane when she was a member of this committee.

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív

I welcome this legislation. Time and again, all of us who look at welfare realise the single most disadvantaged group in society are lone parents. Budget after budget, all the evidence is that is so. I also have a view, which is well known here, that means testing can be very crippling because people are trying to get above the basic payment the State pays. Let us call the €220 plus the child dependant allowance what it is: pure subsistence. We should, therefore, hope most people parenting alone have more than that. We also have to stress that not only does this affect adults but also children and the next generation. When we look at intergenerational disadvantage, we find that children who come from less well-off backgrounds start at a disadvantage from day one and, therefore, we are affecting two generations in the one go. Anything that improves this is a good idea.

We spent a little time talking about the liable relatives provision. When you read the whole brief, however, it is one of these great cases where the total income is €400,000 and the cost of collecting the income is €590,000 or something. It would actually cost money to have this provision and the whole thing was worthless. I applaud the Department for just getting rid of it, but in case anybody out there watching thinks the State is making a massive sacrifice, it is saving a few hundred thousand euro. In the greater scheme of things in welfare it will not make much difference. It is just a tidying-up job.

The more important part is how the means for maintenance payments will be assessed. That is the more radical change. I welcome the idea that child dependant money will not be assessed but some very comprehensive way is needed of making sure this differentiation between what goes to the parent and what goes to the child is made. At the end of the day, it will not be the seven-year-old child who will be handling any money that is given to that child.

An Cathaoirleach

For clarification, Revenue deal with this as well. That clarification is there within its system.

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív

If somebody is going to court and so on, he or she has to be forewarned that it is much better to get the money for the child than for himself or herself because that is the way that person will keep the maximum amount of money. We need to have a further debate about the mechanics of this so that the person looking for maintenance realises the implications of the money being paid to him or her as opposed to being paid separately to that individual and the child.

It should be remembered that means testing is fairly penal at 50%. It is probably said it is very generous to give 50%. The way I always look at that is the highest rate of income tax in the country is only 40%. Many people paying 40% tax on good salaries are whingeing about that 40%. The 50% is quite a penal rate of clawback. I question whether we are getting good value for that money. I am of the belief that the more people parenting alone, or lone parents as they have been commonly called today, are facilitated in getting above the poverty threshold, the more we are investing in their children and their future, and the more we are alleviating poverty in two generations.

It is not the basis of this Bill, but it is something that we as a committee need to reflect on deeply.

I have a specific question. According to the briefing, if the claimant has housing costs, for example, rent or mortgage, then there is a maximum of up to €95.23. I suspect that that figure of €95.23 goes back to the days of the old punt and has not changed since. I would be interested in the Department providing me with information on what the average cost of mortgages or rents was when the €95.23 was decided and comparing that with today’s cost of housing. Compared with what was initially intended, the officials will find that that amount is derisory. People in all sorts of circumstances break up. It is just one of the facts of life. Other people have been lone parents since the birth of their children. Some of them have taken on family commitments, mortgages and so on. I guarantee the officials that, for someone with a mortgage of a few hundred thousand euro, €95.23 per week is a small amount to take off.

As a committee, we first need to gather a little information on when the figure of €95.23 was set and what the average cost of housing – to purchase and to rent – was in those days and what it is now. We will then be able to devise an adjustor to decide what the figure would be now just to keep level with what €95.23 amounted to at the time it was fixed.

I welcome the Bill but, while it is progressive, it is too conservative. Is the figure of €95.23 set out in law? Was it set by ministerial order or was it an actual legal decision? I suspect the latter. If so, it needs to be changed through this Bill or through the Social Welfare Bill later this year.

Mr. Rónán Hession

As always, the Deputy shows his experience as a former Minister in knowing the detail very well. He keeps us on our toes.

An Cathaoirleach

Someone has to make sure you earn your salaries.

Mr. Rónán Hession

It is very important that the courts strictly enforce maintenance because that would really help one-parent families who have access to maintenance to keep out of the poverty trap. There is no point in pulling everybody down. There was a saying at home about people who, if you were down a hole, would pull you out but if you climbed a ladder would pull the ladder from under you. I accept that social welfare is great at stopping people falling down a hole but, at times, the minute they try to climb the ladder, the Department goes after them with a vengeance with means testing.

Mr. Rónán Hession

What we are seeing in the overall figure is that 75% of cases are covered entirely by the housing disregard and the remaining 25% or 24% get the full benefit of the disregard. Child maintenance will no longer be part of the picture in the future so that disregard now applies only to the residual portion.

We have still some work to do on this but in the case of most lone parent cases, if there is a court order, that is all very clear. In a lot a lone parent cases where there is not an ongoing relationship between two people, there is no basis for the payment of spousal maintenance. In most case, child maintenance is all that is in play. When we talk about these disregards into the future, the amount of money they apply to will no longer include child maintenance. It will just be the spousal bit. While I take the Deputy's point that the figure has not moved, in 75% of cases it does its job in covering off the housing cost.

We completely agree with the Deputy that this is a vulnerable cohort with a high poverty rate, one that is much higher than in the general population. Certainly from our point of view, we hope that decoupling child maintenance from the social welfare system means it can be a separate untouched income source for the household that will not have a knock-on effect on its payments. We hope we are in the business of helping people who are in a hole to get out of it. In all our schemes there is a nexus where a person's income gets to a point where he or she may need less support from the social welfare system or he or she is in employment. That is always the tricky bit. As the Deputy will know from experience, we know from all our schemes that when people have other sources of income, whether it is from employment or elsewhere, and a degree of financial independence, the design choice will be a matter of how the social welfare system handles somebody leaving a payment and being financially independent.

Perhaps the Department could furnish the committee with whatever statistics and data it has on this. The committee will take a further look at it. We may call Mr. Hession and his colleagues in separately to go through this specific issue again. It is the one issue that I flagged up in the review of the documentation. It seems to be a bizarrely low threshold. I take on board what Mr. Hession is saying in relation to the alteration in the calculation of maintenance from this point forward. I have another question for Mr. Hession, wearing his assistant secretary hat, and he may not be able to give me an answer today. That is okay, but he might come back to the committee on it. Is this figure or a similar figure used in terms of disregards in any other aspect of social welfare or in any other aspect of the calculation of the one-parent family payment? While hopefully it will no longer be an issue here or it will only be a relatively small issue here, is this figure or a similar figure used in other calculations in social welfare? The reality is that if it has not been addressed in three decades and housing costs have skyrocketed since, undue hardship is being put on families. It needs to be radically reformed very urgently in the forthcoming budget. The Department might come back to us on that.

Second, from the evidence that we have heard today it is very clear that there is now an urgent need for clarification in terms of maintenance agreements where there is an agreement in place and a payment is being made. There is a need for clarity on what is spousal maintenance and what is child maintenance. One of the recommendations I think the committee should now consider on foot of this is that the Minister should engage or seek a tender from the family mediation service to assist parents in receipt of this payment in having that clarified for them. It would make things easier from an administration point of view. From the Department's point of view, it would facilitate revenue in terms of the revenue aspect of it. It would also assist one-parent families in having clarity. I suggest that the Department should seek a tender from the family mediation service to perform the service specifically for this cohort of people so that we have clarity for everyone's benefit in relation to it.

I note again the point Deputy Ó Cuív made regarding savings to the State. Many people who argue that different payments should be means-tested, including child benefit, which comes to mind quite regularly, should take note of the cost and savings involved because this is a real issue. I wish to turn to the fourth point in the submission, the cost to the Exchequer. The potential cost to the State in relation to this is €10.1 million per annum due to the potential inflow of new customers and increase in payments and an increase in payments for existing customers. However, there is no consideration in that calculation of the additional potential incentive for one-parent families to take up additional part-time employment, which would reduce the liability on the State and increase the amount of PRSI taken in. That is not included in the calculation. It will be a factor - how big I do not know - but it should be acknowledged that it will, I hope, help some one-parent families to break out of that cycle of poverty.

Related to that is the €165 exemption for a one-parent family payment recipient to take up employment and the clawback of 50% after that. Deputy Ó Cuív articulated the point well that the wealthiest people pay tax at 40%, yet we ask one-parent family payment recipients to pay tax at 50% in relation to their income. It is on gross income, so it is potentially taxable as well. That €165 threshold has not been increased in a number of years. The reality is that the national minimum wage has increased since then. Will the witnesses clarify for the committee when it was last increased and the change in the national minimum wage since then? The witnesses may not have those figures to hand but perhaps they could furnish them to the committee afterwards. This is also an aspect that should be considered in the context of budget discussions. This committee is very conscious of the need to try to ensure that we can break that cycle of poverty for one-parent families, both in terms of the current generation and the generation to come. There is also an issue of helping these parents - usually women - to get back into the workforce, even if it is only one or two hours a week. It is not just the income aspect, there is a huge psychological boost in terms of confidence for parents getting back into the workforce. It not only benefits them but benefits that whole family and has knock-on, intergenerational impacts as well. We have an economy in which there is full employment, and, hopefully, opportunities to get flexible work. With the delivery of broadband to every home in Ireland there are other opportunities for flexible employment. We need to ensure that one-parent families are in a position to capitalise on that for the intergenerational benefits, as well as the esteem and financial benefits.

Mr. Rónán Hession

The Chair raised a number of points. I will go through my notes and if I have missed anything, please remind me.

On the question about the housing disregard and whether it applies elsewhere, it applies across the system but only in respect of maintenance. It is only an offset against maintenance, not against employment income.

If lone parents have income from maintenance, they can apply the housing disregard. If they are also working, the €165 will be offset. I do not know when that €165 was last changed. I think it has been in place for some time. We have in recent budgets adjusted the working family payment. Approximately 45,000 people avail of the working family payment and approximately half of them are lone parents. The working family payment is the one that tends to move in line with changes in the national minimum wage.

An Cathaoirleach

Some of the thresholds have changed. We are not going to have that debate today because we have had it before. However, I take Mr. Hession's point.

Mr. Rónán Hession

The current position is that the Government is working towards a living wage so there are many different dynamics involved.

I was before the committee previously talking about the strawman on pay-related benefit. There is a proposal for that working family payment model to be applied more generally. I am not referring to lone parent payments, to clarify. The threshold approach gives a lot more flexibility. People can find the threshold for their family composition and get 60% in the difference. It is a bit more consistent and flexible for someone who is combining work and welfare.

I agree with the Cathaoirleach on the employment outcomes. To some extent, if we look at the figures from the survey on income and living conditions, SILC, or international figures, Ireland is much more reliant on income transfers to address poverty than other countries. The social welfare system does a lot of the heavy lifting to bridge the gaps in market inequality and income inequality. Employment participation is part of that, as are other services. We have a pile of projects in the north east of the country at the moment in partnership with One Family Ireland and using European funding. Similar projects are being run in Finland and Greece. We are trying to look at what works for lone parents. As a Department, our blind spot is structuring systems around what we can administer and what works. We must ask what works from the lone parents' point of view. We are working through that. We have had good engagement and great co-operation from One Family Ireland. The outcome will be interesting. Because it is being done in three different countries, there is a chance for us to share homework and see how it works out.

An Cathaoirleach

Mr. Hession might furnish the committee with a note outlining that scheme. I know the members would be very interested in it.

Mr. Rónán Hession

I have a note here that I will share with the committee. We will pick up on the various points that have been raised and will supply a note to the committee promptly.

The Cathaoirleach made a point about the €10 million, which links back to the point I made about PRSI participation. That is probably more germane to the income disregard than the maintenance disregard but I know the point the Cathaoirleach is making. These things tend to be costed in terms of first-order effects but there are also second-order effects that come through.

Deputy Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire

We are moving into a broader discussion about social welfare policy but in light of the Chair's comments, it would be remiss of me not to make the following point, in which I firmly believe. We are talking about assisting and supporting lone parents to work and to break cycles and all of that. There is a big problem in current policy. People can get the one-parent family payment until a child is aged seven. Parents can work up to 18 hours per week and get the one-parent family and working family payment. As soon as the child is seven, parents who are working are no longer entitled to the working family payment. They are entitled to the jobseeker's transitional payment and when availing of that payment are ineligible for the working family payment. While that may not affect an enormous amount of people, those who are affected are affected profoundly. There is nothing else in the system to compensate, to my knowledge. I make that point.

What is the timescale for publication and enactment of this legislation?

Mr. Rónán Hession

I thank the Deputy and note his points on the jobseeker's transitional payment and the working family payment. In respect of the timescale, I thank the committee for accommodating and facilitating the process going ahead. That is much appreciated. We are already engaging with the Parliamentary Counsel.

Subject to the Business Committee and scheduling, we would like to see this enacted in this session so we would be in a position to commence it and bring it into play as soon as possible.

Deputy Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire

In layman's terms, that means we could have this finished by Christmas.

Mr. Rónán Hession

Yes, that is what we would like to do.

An Cathaoirleach

There are two members of the Business Committee on this committee and there will not be a problem in facilitating it from the Business Committee point of view. The departmental officials can get it published and we will get it through.

Mr. Rónán Hession

We will do our best. We are already back and forth with the drafter. I know it is hard to follow but the red text is quite small. These are surgical amendments. We have to get them right. There is a lot of homework that goes into deleting one sentence because you have to make sure it is not connected elsewhere to a very thick Act but the amount of drafting involved subsequent to that checking is not enormous now we have reached this point. We are hopeful the drafting process will not be laboured.

An Cathaoirleach

I will put a practical question to Mr. Hession. The enactment of law is one thing; the commencement of law is another thing. Will the Department be in a position to sign the commencement order as soon as Uachtarán na hÉireann has signed it into law? There are regulations and administrative aspects that have to run in tandem with this. In the past the Oireachtas has facilitated the expeditious passing of law, only for the commencement order to wait years before it happens, or probably months in this case. As a reciprocal request, can we get an assurance that if we deal expeditiously with this, the Department will ensure the commencement order is signed expeditiously after enactment of the law?

Mr. Rónán Hession

I cannot give an assurance on that but it is certainly the intention. I am in this Department five years. Prior to that, I worked in the Department of Finance and was completely ignorant of all the work that Revenue had to do to make things happen and implement them. I have learned in my time in this Department that the social welfare system is a very complex computer system. We have started the work of getting ready for this with a view to getting it done by the end of the year and getting it through quickly. The Minister wants it done quickly. We are working on the basis it will be done before Christmas this year, implemented and commenced, etc.

An Cathaoirleach

Maybe as a halfway house, and coming back to Deputy Ó Laoghaire’s earlier comment, the committee could recommend that the backdating be to the enactment of the law, rather than the commencement. Then, even if there is an administrative delay in the commencement, at least one-parent families will not have to carry the burden of that. I do not think it has been put into law up to now but it is not beyond the capability of the parliamentary draftsperson’s office to put in such a provision. It would provide reassurance to the committee and to recipients and would follow through on the commitments given today. I know that is the intention of the Department but I remember a schoolteacher telling me a long time ago that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Good intentions and actions can sometimes not be the same thing. Maybe we will put that recommendation in, which will assist the Department as well as the recipients.

I thank the witnesses for giving us their time and for their engagement with the committee over the summer on this legislation. Go raibh míle maith agaibh go léir. I thank members for participating. The meeting stands adjourned until Friday, 22 September at 10 a.m., when we will meet on public session on Árainn Mhór island to discuss engagement on the operation of national and local policies that affect island communities.

This meeting now stands adjourned. Go raibh míle maith agaibh go léir.

The joint committee adjourned at 10.40 a.m. until 10 a.m. on Friday, 22 September 2023.

Joint Committee on Social Protection, Community and Rural Development and the Islands debate - Wednesday, 20 Sep 2023

General Scheme of the Social Welfare (Child Maintenance and Liable Relatives) Bill 2023: Discussion

Mr. Rónán Hession

Mr. Rónán Hession

Mr. Rónán Hession

Mr. Rónán Hession

Ms Dearbháil Nic Giolla Mhicíl

Mr. Rónán Hession

Mr. Rónán Hession

Mr. Rónán Hession

Ms Dearbháil Nic Giolla Mhicíl

Ms Dearbháil Nic Giolla Mhicíl

Mr. Rónán Hession

Mr. Rónán Hession

Ms Dearbháil Nic Giolla Mhicíl

Mr. Rónán Hession

Mr. Rónán Hession

Mr. Rónán Hession

Ms Dearbháil Nic Giolla Mhicíl

Mr. Rónán Hession

Mr. Rónán Hession

Mr. Rónán Hession

Ms Dearbháil Nic Giolla Mhicíl

Ms Dearbháil Nic Giolla Mhicíl

Mr. Rónán Hession

Mr. Rónán Hession

Mr. Rónán Hession

Mr. Rónán Hession

Mr. Rónán Hession

Mr. Rónán Hession

Mr. Rónán Hession

Mr. Rónán Hession

Mr. Rónán Hession

Mr. Rónán Hession

Joint Committee on Social Protection, Community and Rural Development and the Islands debate -
Wednesday, 20 Sep 2023