Dáil Éireann Debate, Tuesday - 7 November 2017
52. Deputy John Brady asked the Minister for Employment Affairs and Social Protection the reason lone parents are being forced to seek child maintenance from an ex-partner in order to retain their one-parent family payment; her plans to remove this rule; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [46921/17]
View answerOne of the conditions for receiving a one-parent family payment obliges lone parents to seek child maintenance from the other parent themselves. Why is that the case?
The current conditions for the making of the one-parent family payment include the requirement that the lone parent must at least make an effort to seek maintenance from the other parent in order to retain the payment. This is because parents have responsibilities. This always has been a condition of the one-parent family payment. It is not new. It is not some new measure that has been brought in. It was laid down in the social welfare regulations as far back as 2007. The "efforts to seek maintenance" condition is regarded as being satisfied once appropriate efforts are made by the lone parent to seek maintenance from the other parent, even if this does not result in getting any maintenance payment from the other parent. These efforts can include, but are obviously not limited to, evidence of a consensual agreement, participation in structured mediation and court proceedings. The condition is also considered satisfied in situations where there is domestic abuse or sexual violence, which unfortunately occur.
The Department has been reviewing aspects of the maintenance arrangements relevant to lone parents, including the "efforts to seek maintenance" condition. Since April, however, work on a statutory review of the one-parent family payment has taken priority. It is something we all needed and wanted. The review is now complete and the report has been laid before the Houses. Given that the same team is involved, we are now going back to continue the work on the conditions with regard to the payment. The requirement is not new; it has been always in place. It is simply a case of honouring the rights and responsibilities that go with being a parent. We all know that it takes two to tango, and people have to live up to their responsibilities.
I acknowledge it is not a new condition but that does not mean it is a fair one. It is an unnecessary condition for the receipt of the one-parent family payment. Why should the lone parent have to make contact or try to make contact with an ex-partner to seek child maintenance in order to receive a payment to which she or he should be entitled in the first place? Lone parents are raising their children on their own. That should be the only condition for the receipt of the payment. Lone parents, many of whom have been in touch with me, are being put in precarious and very dangerous circumstances trying to chase down ex-partners to try to get them to agree to making maintenance payments. The Minister touched on this. In some cases, there is horrific abuse, both physical and mental, which is putting lone parents in a very dangerous position. There are numerous examples around the world of models in which lone parents do not have to chase down the payment themselves. There are examples that this State should be considering.
There is absolutely nobody that would be ever required by my Department to put himself or herself in a dangerous position to acquire proof. That is why I clearly told the Deputy that a satisfying condition is somebody telling us he or she has been subject to domestic or sexual violence.
Nobody is being asked to put themselves in any dangerous position. What we are here to do is to protect people and to mind them at the period in their lives when they do not have the means and the will to do it themselves. It is a condition because the solidarity behind the money we receive from taxpayers who pay into the Social Insurance Fund is to help people at times in their lives when they cannot otherwise help themselves. Why would we not make it a condition that when there is a second parent, he or she is responsible for his or her children? Why does Deputy Brady think it is okay to have a taxpayer fund somebody's responsibility just because we have not gone after him or her to make sure he or she knows his or her rights and responsibilities?
I do not agree with Deputy Brady. It takes two people to make a baby and both of them have rights and responsibilities towards the child. The State kicks in to bear those responsibilities during periods when people cannot look after themselves to the extent they would like, but that does not let off the hook the parent who is missing in action. I totally disagree with Deputy Brady that we should take it out of the conditions that we would pursue people to ensure they bear their rights and responsibilities.
I think the Minister is missing the point here.
I am not.
I am not saying the ex-partner should get away scot-free. On the contrary, what I am arguing for is the payment to be made to the lone parent and for the State to chase down the maintenance.
Why would the State do it?
Unfortunately, the situation for many lone parents is that the maintenance payment is being treated as household income. That is contrary to what it should be. It is a payment for the child; it is not household income. Unfortunately, what we see is that the payment is means-tested for family income support and other payments, whether it is paid or not. That is the reality. It is putting many lone parents in financially worse-off situations. There is a serious problem here. Why are lone parents being forced into messy, dangerous situations? There are many such cases. I must contradict the Minister. There is one case of which the Minister's predecessor was aware, as I brought it directly to his attention, where a lone parent was forced to go abroad to try to identify where the ex-partner was living and to try to get a payment put in place. Even if there is a court order, it does not mean the payment will be made. There is a serious problem at issue. Lone parents are being unfairly penalised and there need to be changes. I urge the Minister to examine the issue, which is unfair, unsafe and financially damaging to many lone parents.
The State entirely recognises that when a maintenance payment is made, the vast majority of the payment is for the children and that is not included in the household means test. Deputy Brady is well aware of that.
Does Deputy Brady seriously think it is the State's responsibility to chase down maintenance? That just beggars belief. Nobody will be put in a dangerous position. The condition will be satisfied immediately if anybody is subject to either domestic threats of violence or of a sexual nature. No payment is deducted on the basis of a court award or a mutual agreement. The only time payments are deducted is when there are actual means coming into a house arising from a payment. Deputy Brady can shake his head but if he has evidence to the contrary, he should please bring it to me and I will chase it up. In the absence of evidence, then it is just hearsay from Deputy Brady's perspective and I have factual evidence that we do not do that. I will say it again. I sound like a broken record but that is only when I am talking to Deputy Brady. If he has evidence of wrongdoing on the part of the people in my Department, he should bring it to me.
Does the Minister speak to organisations such as SPARK representing lone parents?
Yes, I do.
Deputy Brady's time has expired. This is not a conversation.
What bears fruit in our Department is facts. I say sincerely to Deputy Brady that he should bring it to my attention if he has evidence of anybody being mistreated. We have 7,000 staff members and the vast majority of the people whom I have met to date are committed and wonderful people who want to serve people in public service. They go out of their way to make sure they get looked after because the people we are dealing with are vulnerable. They are at times of their lives where they need to be helped and minded. We are not some group of people who are just going out of our way to make it difficult for people. The whole purpose of the Department of Employment Affairs and Social Protection is to protect and to make sure that the welfare of people is upheld and that we do it with dignity and respect. For the last time, hopefully, today, if Deputy Brady has evidence he should bring it to me and I will investigate it.
