JOINT COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL AND FAMILY AFFAIRS díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 20 Jan 2010

Financial Disincentives to Cohabitation and Marriage: Discussion.

Chairman

I welcome Ms Karen Kiernan, director, and Ms Candy Murphy, policy and research manager, of One Family, and Ms Frances Byrne, director, and Mr. John O'Neill, deputy chairperson, of OPEN. I ask Ms Kiernan to commence the presentation relating to the findings of a draft joint committee report on the financial disincentives to cohabitation and marriage. That will be followed by a contribution from Ms Byrne and members may then ask questions.

I draw witnesses' attention to the fact that members of the committee have absolute privilege but the same privilege does not apply to witnesses appearing before the committee. Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that members should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the House or an official by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.

Ms Karen Kiernan

I thank the committee for inviting One Family to address it. I am director of One Family, which is the leading provider of specialist family support services to people who parent alone and share parenting of children. We have done this for the past 38 years, as we were established in 1972 as Cherish, and we have worked away since.

We work in two main areas, the first concerning activation and progression supports for lone parents, with the other concerning family and parenting supports. We respond to evidence-based needs and develop and pilot new service responses before bringing them into the mainstream. We transfer the learning of this work into our policy positions, and that is what we will speak to the committee about today. As well as our research, we lobby nationally and at EU level on the issues. To tell the committee more about our research, I will hand over to Ms Candy Murphy, who is our policy and research manager.

Ms Candy Murphy

If everybody has a copy of our presentation I will go through it very quickly. I want to talk about the focus of our work and the perspective from which we approach the issues being addressed and what our research has shown as the barriers to employment for lone parents, as well as the issues affecting lone parents moving out of poverty. I will also consider international evidence concerning disincentives to cohabitation.

The focus of our work is around reducing poverty in one-parent families and supporting lone parents in balancing work and caring. We put much effort into lobbying around the many poverty traps that the committee's report refers to which prevent lone parents going back to work or moving into full-time work. We have come at this from the perspective of what is in the best interests of children. We try to support families in a variety of ways so they can balance their work and caring role. We also lobby for equality for all families, regardless of family type.

With regard to the committee report, the recommendations must be balanced in light of current economic circumstances and children must be put at the centre of any reforms of the one-parent family payment and how the State supports lone parents. It is important that the committee recognises the complexity and changing circumstances of modern family life, with a growing number of lone parents separated or divorced. This issue must be taken into account when considering cohabitation and relations with fathers of the children involved.

Our main focus is finding the most effective policy to reduce poverty in one-parent families. There are myriad statistics across two pages in our presentation but the committee will be glad to hear that I will not go through all of them. It is important to point out some that are in italics. The number of lone parents who are divorced, separated or widowed is approximately 40% of the total, which is an important factor. Some 57% of lone parents are in employment, according to the census, compared with 30% of females in couples. Lone parents are in the labour market, which is important.

The next page of statistics details the high level of poverty, which the members are well aware of, in lone-parent households. Whatever the financial arrangements of lone parents and their access to welfare and other income, the reality is that lone parents have the highest rate of poverty of any group in Ireland. This remained the case through all the boom years; while the rate declined, it remained four times the national average. Addressing poverty will be a key issue.

We have also reported figures from the Growing Up in Ireland survey, which will be a key source of information on family form, type and relationships in Ireland. It shows that a quarter of mothers say they have a very negative relationship with the father of their child when they are not living with the father. Some 21% have a positive relationship, with 9% a very positive relationship. Where mothers and fathers are living apart and caring for a child jointly in some way, there tends to be a history of problems in many cases, which we must consider.

Some 51% said they never spoke to the child's father about the child. These results concern nine-year-old children in Ireland where the father is not living with the mother. Some 51% also said the father never made a financial contribution to the child. These are important contextual factors in how we address the issue of lone parenting and shared parenting.

When the reforms were initially proposed by the late Séamus Brennan, we were keen for any change to be based on really good statistics. I am happy to say that the Department of Social and Family Affairs co-operated with us in carrying out a national representative survey of lone parents on the payment. This is the result of the study launched by the Minister, Deputy Hanafin, in 2008.

The study's overriding finding is the strong motivation among lone parents to work and participate in education and training. Some 84% of those surveyed nationally were working, looking for work or engaged in education or training. Many of those who were not working were looking for work or had worked. A considerable number of lone parents who have had children in the past one or two years are still interested in working. That fact that motivation to work is not an issue is an important point. The employment experience of lone parents and their ability to move out of poverty is strongly influenced by other factors, as reflected in the committee's report. I refer to the issues of age, educational qualifications, previous experience, backgrounds and health.

The next overhead shows the serious employment barriers of which the committee is well aware to lone parents moving off welfare and into well-paid employment. We ask the committee to focus its attention on these issues, particularly rent supplement. Today, we received a letter from a lone parent. Even though she has a child of three years of age, she is living with her sister in overcrowded conditions. She wants to move out but is working part time and the amount of money she can get from the State to help to cover accommodation costs is a quarter of what it would be if she went onto welfare. These are the types of problem that we should be addressing.

Another issue is child care. If there is any compulsory activation of lone parents, we do not have the child care or after-school facilities to support lone parents working full time or during afternoons and holidays. Our presentation outlines the types of support lone parents need if they are to leave welfare.

One Family has reached several conclusions on how to encourage the employment of lone parents who are in receipt of the one-parent family payment. There is no evidence that the historically low take-up of training programmes is due to a lack of compulsion, which was implied in the report. FÁS is working with us and OPEN to determine how to attract more lone parents into training programmes that are run in a way suited to their situations and there has been no problem with participation. We must build on these types of programmes and encourage lone parents to take them up. There must be progression routes into further training.

Regarding the proposed reforms of the one-parent family payment, we have supported the idea of a parental allowance to all low-income families, irrespective of whether there is more than one parent. This would be an important way of examining the role of parents and acknowledging parenting, as it would cover both one and two-parent families. However, we do not support compulsory activation at this time. In our report, we showed that people are on the payment, not because of a lack of motivation to work, but because of financial disincentives, rent supplement payments and a lack of affordable child care facilities.

In the current economic climate, it is important that we develop further voluntary initiatives to support lone parents to move into work and training. We could review these programmes when the economy picks up. The focus should be on encouraging employment as a way of reducing and getting out of poverty.

Ireland possesses no research into the disincentives of social welfare payments. Any decision to change policy based on an assumption in this regard should be backed up by research. The UK's research, which also reports on the American experience, indicates that there is no hard evidence of a relationship between welfare systems and family structures. This review, conducted by the UK's Department of Work and Pensions, found no strong evidence of a persistent or significant impact. In America, the estimated overall effects of welfare are relatively small in magnitude and cannot explain the secular decline in marriage rates and the increase in divorce rates at a time when average welfare payments declined. There is no clear evidence that reducing disincentives affects family structures. This view must be considered. The research also points out that the quality of family life, including relationships between family members, cannot be ignored, particularly where one wants what is in the best interests of children.

Even when one considers incentives or disincentives, one must recognise that other factors will affect lone parents and their children. I am glad that the committee's report acknowledged this. I am referring to personal circumstances, age, lack of affordable child care and the history of relationships.

Focus should be on supporting families and understanding the family dynamic. We call for Irish research on cohabitation and non-cohabitation that draws on research from the UK and elsewhere and examines patterns of movement to and from the one-parent family payment. We must understand the dynamics of what is occurring before we change policy. We encourage reform of the Constitution to recognise all families based on the substance of the family rather than its form, as is currently the case. We are calling for reform in line with the European Convention on Human Rights to recognise all family types. We call on the committee to increase understanding of family conflict and other issues, some of which I have raised. We also call for more parenting and family supports to help us to address some of the issues keeping lone parents in poverty.

Ms Frances Byrne

Good morning Chairman, Deputies and Senators. John O'Neill, OPEN's deputy chairperson and the co-ordinator of PASS, our member group in Finglas, and I welcome the opportunity to appear on behalf of OPEN before the committee to discuss the draft joint committee report on financial disincentives to cohabitation and marriage. We are conscious of time and understand that we have approximately ten minutes with which to offer our reactions to the findings of the draft report, which the clerk has kindly provided to us, so we have attached additional information in our written submission, which members have received.

OPEN is the national network of community-based lone parent groups. The organisation provides a range of development programmes to build the capacity of our membership, one of our core objectives. Our second objective concerns policy and research. Uniquely, OPEN represents one-parent families in social partnership and other social fora. We were established in 1994 in response to the need to form a national network of the growing number of local lone parent-led groups. Our member groups now support between 10,000 and 15,000 one-parent families per year. The organisation is led by a board composed exclusively of lone parents or people with experience of lone parenthood.

We are basing our submission on our observations of the draft report and we welcome the opportunity to attend during this stage of the committee's deliberations. The report uses as its basis the Government proposals on supporting lone parents published in 2006. This seems like a logical place to start, although it should be noted, to be fair and accurate, that the perceived or actual financial disincentives to cohabiting and marriage were not the sole impetus for the development of the proposals. The late Minister, Séamus Brennan, was also motivated by the levels of child poverty among low-income families, including but not limited to those headed by lone parents. This is the point at which we would like to start. Speaking as a national anti-poverty network, poverty is the overarching and underlying issue that continues to impact on one-parent families. We believe that addressing this matter should be the central focus of public policy development and implementation.

The draft report was required to examine the disincentivising potential of the current tax and social welfare systems. It also conducted a somewhat cursory examination of education and training provision, issues to which I will revert. The report contains an unfortunate underlying assumption that the current social welfare system acts as an incentive to the formation of one-parent families. Like our colleagues in One Family, we reject this assumption completely and point out that no evidence is provided for it in the report or any other publication. International evidence does not point to this assumption either, as mentioned by Ms Murphy. While the report can legitimately highlight the potential or real disincentives of the tax or social welfare systems, it should not jump to conclusions about the motivations of family formation in the absence of robust evidence. This is not available in Ireland today and we cannot simply point to the growing numbers of lone parents on social welfare and make crude assumptions about the motivations. Our experience in OPEN is that the routes into lone parenthood are diverse, complex and multifaceted.

The factual position with regard to tax and social welfare systems is outlined, although the latest figures for social welfare are not included, presumably because of the timing, but we have included them in an appendix. As members of the committee will realise, unemployed lone parents are approximately €8 worse off than at this time last year.

Turning to the area of training, the report is unsound in its opening assertion, which we have cited in page 3 of our submission, that those on one-parent family benefit are very slow to take up offers of training even when specifically targeted. This is absolutely not the case; in fact it is quite the opposite. There are myriad examples which contradict this. We name just a few in our submission. In 1997 the introduction of the one-parent family payment led to a huge increase in lone parents participating in community employment and by the end of the year, about 40% of those participating in community employment were lone parents. Some 40% of people in the country who were eligible for community employment were not lone parents. This happened because community employment met very specific needs of one-parent families.

Since 1998 OPEN has provided a national training and development programme for lone parents which has led to accredited and other initiatives in voluntary management, leadership and advocacy, parent support, voter education and negotiation skills, to name a few. Every programme we have provided has been consistently over-subscribed irrespective of where it is run in the country. This is due to the fact that we provide the necessary supports, put courses on at the right times and meet the needs of one-parent families. Our member groups provide a gamut of education, training and vocational programmes which are well attended by lone parents from a variety of backgrounds and in a diversity of locations.

The most recent example of State-provided targeted training is cited in the draft report but, to be fair to the author, it had not taken place when this draft was complete. However, it has been a very interesting experience for the three national lone-parent organisations involved — OPEN, One Family and our colleagues in Treoir. The programme, with the input from the three national lone-parent organisations, has been devised with the needs of one-parent families in mind and it has been seriously over-subscribed. For example, 80 potential participants attended an information session in Finglas and more than 220 attended in Tallaght. This is the first time that FÁS has had this kind of success, the reason being the involvement of the three lone-parent organisations who explained the rocket science of programmes starting at the right time, child care, etc. As Ms Murphy has said there is no question about the motivation, all the figures speak for themselves. One can only conclude that lone parents are highly motivated to attend training and other opportunities which are designed with their needs in mind. We believe that this reality should be reflected in the committee's report.

In regard to the conclusions of the draft report, we agree with the assertion that the objectives of the 2006 paper are as relevant now as they were then. OPEN has supported the overall objectives of the Government proposals to support lone parents. As the only lone-parent representative on the National Economic and Social Forum's team which examined this area in 2000-01, we have consistently sought to highlight and address the range of important and relevant issues affecting one-parent families. We believe that the interests of low-income families are best served by a universal payment which is not linked to marital or family status, that is the parental allowance described in the proposals.

We have offered unqualified support for the ending of the cohabitation rule which we have long argued makes outdated, unrealistic and unsupported assumptions about the dependence of women on their male partners. Its implementation and fears surrounding this, mean that the choices faced by lone parents are limited and fraught.

However, we do not agree with the recommendation in the committee's draft report that the age limit should be seven years of age. As the report points out very eloquently and repeatedly, the lack of adequate child care provision means that lone parents face particular challenges as sole parent and sole breadwinner. We favour a higher age threshold, closer to or at the age group at which most children enter second level. We note and welcome the recommendation that there should be intervention for some years prior to the age limit being reached by the youngest child. That should not be compulsory, but voluntary.

In 2006, in order to prepare our response to the proposals issued at the time, we carried out a series of consultations with lone parents in various parts of Ireland. There was solid support from all; not one lone mother or lone father said, "This is not for me". However, in the Border region in particular lone parents did ask, even then, "Where will the jobs come from?" In other areas, the combination of a lack of child care and patchy rural transport provision means that it will not be realistic to impose an expectation that parents will be able to find work or the means to access employment easily. At this stage, some four years later, even in our biggest cities and towns, families are hard-pressed to find employment of any kind, no matter what their composition.

Nevertheless we agree with the thrust of the final section of the report that even in these difficult times we should pursue the goal of supporting lone parents, indeed all families, to move out of poverty and into secure, sustainable, meaningful employment and-or education and training options. As an anti-poverty network, OPEN has always argued for that policy goal. The fact is that the Department of Social and Family Affairs' own figures show that in spite of the barriers, lone parents move into work at increasing numbers. There is plenty the Department and others, including FÁS, could do to prepare the ground, even in the context of a recession. The priorities identified by our members are as follows: social welfare reform will be needed to develop a universal parental allowance; careful examination of all the Department's schemes will need to continue so that new poverty traps do not emerge; and the Department will need to make a definitive call about the precise age when such family supports, for example income supports, would cease so that parents would be reassured about their payments and any preparatory work which will need to be undertaken. It is unfortunate, on foot of media interviews, that different ages are given, following which OPEN and member groups received numerous phone calls asking what they will do now that their child is 12 years of age. There is a need for consistency and lone parents need to know where they stand.

FÁS will need to reform its delivery of mainstream training, something our founding groups have requested since the mid-1980s. It remains something of a mystery as to why its best courses begin at 8.30 a.m. when parents are en route to school. We have repeatedly been told that this is due to industry standards — but even those who wish to train as hairdressers have to be in class by the designated hour — although to the best of our knowledge in OPEN, no hair or beauty salon in the entire country opens before 9 a.m. or 9.30 a.m. I make that light-hearted reference to try to hammer home what we think is a really important point.

The report makes reference to the changes in rent supplement introduced last year. We share the author's view that the Department should monitor this situation very closely. We are gravely concerned about it. We have long observed in OPEN the piecemeal nature of social welfare development. It is not in the Department's or lone parents' interest that alterations made to one scheme would have an adverse effect elsewhere. OPEN has been a strong advocate of the rental accommodation scheme in which we were involved from the beginning. Committee members will be aware it is being made available at local authority level to those who have long-term renting needs. This scheme supports movement into employment in a way that rent supplement has not and we believe that for those who depend on the private sector, it has enormous potential. The downturn may also result in public lands being made available for the provision of social housing by other means as well, which we would support.

OPEN supports the need to remove any disincentives or discrimination within the tax and social welfare systems which may prevent people from making life choices. However, we would like the committee to note in all its deliberations and publications that families in Ireland are formed in myriad ways and this should be recognised and supported in all public provision. The need to address the startling and continuing poverty of children needs to be a public policy priority. It should not matter where a child is born or what type of family a child is born into or grows up in, no more than having blue, brown or green eyes should matter or be a factor in their equality of condition. Families who separate during childhood years need support so that the trauma experienced is not accompanied by a shift into poverty or further poverty and disadvantage. Ireland can and should strive to be a country where child poverty is confined to history.

Given the levels of misinformation and stereotyping about one-parent families in particular, OPEN welcomes being part of any discussion or development which seeks to address the gaps in such provision. We thank the committee for the invitation to appear before it today and we would be happy to answer any questions or clarifications from members.

Deputy Olwyn Enright

I thank the Chairman. I welcome the two groups and thank them for their presentations.

The issue of poverty traps and the rent supplement, a matter the committee discussed earlier, is on our work programme for examination. Our guests are aware that the targets were not reached. Originally, it was 30,000 people, but it fell to 15,000 before being increased by 1,000 in the second last budget. Does this issue need to be addressed urgently if we are to deal with the matter of poverty traps?

I wish to put a question regarding poverty proofing. Are our guests satisfied that Government decisions, particularly in a budgetary situation, are adequately examining traps? That the child benefit payment was cut is another incentive to remain out of work. Due to the qualified child payment, one could argue about whether the cut would be enough to stop someone taking up a job, but that person will not consider one benefit payment in isolation. Rather, people will include other payments that they will receive. There was a commitment that all decisions would be proofed to try to remove such traps.

A positive aspect of compulsion would be that the State would, one hopes, be compelled to provide training places. The situation is hit and miss at present. We have discussed people's difficulties in, for example, getting the back to education allowance. All of the committee's members could match the success stories related by our guests with instances in which a course did not suit people or was not available in their areas, or there was no child care or transport. Our guests did not really deal with the last matter, but it is a particular issue in rural areas. Will they address it?

Have the witnesses collated statistics on the success of the programmes mentioned? Speaking diplomatically, do people stay in employment afterwards? Obviously the current situation differs from the norm. The committee and the Department need to address this issue. Ms Murphy discussed the patterns of movement on and off the lone-parent's allowance. I asked the Department for a flow analysis, but it did not know what a flow analysis was. When I explained, I was told that it did not have the information, so I asked for any information that it had. What I got outlined how, in 2008, X number of people moved onto and off the allowance, but the Department had no idea of whether someone had been on and off three or four times. There is no way of judging the allowance's rate of success or suitability.

How do the witnesses envisage the parental allowance operating? Is it just meant to replace the one-parent family payment? It would need to fit into other social welfare payments. For example, how would it work if one or both of the people in a relationship was on employment or disability assistance?

Reverting to the issue of compulsion, someone referred to the suitability of courses. Could this point be expanded upon? What is suitable for one person might not be for another. The diversity of qualifications possessed by lone parents is considerable, but there is a tendency towards stereotyping, namely, that lone parents are from a single socioeconomic background, despite the fact that the statistics say otherwise.

After Christmas, the Minister stated that the age of compulsion would be 13 years. What are our guests' opinions in this regard? Will they also outline the difficulties posed to the families with which they deal by the removal of the early child care supplement?

Deputy Róisín Shortall

Will the witnesses finish all of that? What time are we here until? Am I liable to be thrown out at lunch?

I welcome the delegates to the meeting and thank them for their presentations. A recap of how we reached this point is important. Last year, the committee commissioned research from Colm Rapple to examine the tax and welfare systems' financial disincentives to cohabiting couples or couples about to get married. The report was presented to us at the end of the year but I was not satisfied that it was balanced. If the committee is to endorse a report, the former needs wider views, which is how the delegations came to be invited. We intend to meet Treoir and conduct our own work. As such, it is important to point out that the report is not a report of the committee. Rather, it was a draft report presented to us and it is not our intention to publish it as is. We want the opinions of groups such as One Family and OPEN, which have expertise from working in the area.

The committee is quite concerned about the apparent financial disincentives in the options available to cohabiting couples or couples about to marry where they are moving from lone parent situations and in receipt of the lone-parent payment. Both groups stated that there is no research to support the contention that disincentives exist, but most Deputies and Senators have anecdotal evidence from our constituencies to support the assumption. People are regularly in touch with me concerning their options and how they would be affected in terms of welfare payments were they to move from being lone parents to cohabitees or married. Doing the sums, one could conclude that making the move would not be wise. The figures produced by Colm Rapple support this anecdotal evidence. There is no getting away from the fact that they are stark.

I am not saying this to point a finger at anyone or to make judgments about people's circumstances, their different family forms or so on. My net point is on how to have a tax and welfare system that supports lone parents without acting as a disincentive to couples who want to live together or marry. This is a legitimate concern. The tax and welfare systems, as they operate, should not affect people's life choices. Rather, they should be neutral. It is a difficult nut to crack and I do not know whether any country has managed it. Many of us believe a parental payment should be a payment to parents, irrespective of whether their family homes comprise one or two parents or whether they are working or on welfare. The payment would be directed at parents living in poor circumstances. This seems to be the way to go. As we know, however, no progress has been made on this proposal, one of those made by the late Séamus Brennan.

I take on board and fully agree with both groups' points regarding other barriers to lone parents. As stated by Deputy Enright, the committee will address the lack of access to RAS over the coming months. Some 33,000 people qualify for RAS but are stuck on rent supplement. It is an appalling situation to be in. It is the most obvious poverty trap for lone parents and others. We will target this area over the coming months and intend to invite both relevant Departments so we can ask them what the difficulty is.

It would seem there is little communication between the Department of Social and Family Affairs and the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. I have spoken to both Ministers and the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government will not undertake to provide more accommodation under RAS unless the Department of Social and Family Affairs transfers some of its budget to it. This committee hopes to facilitate both Departments to deal with the issue by knocking heads together. All members are aware that people on rent supplement find themselves in difficulties and caught in a poverty trap. RAS is popular as it works for everybody. In many ways it is a no-brainer and we intend to pursue it very vigorously.

I take on board the points made on the compulsory nature of the participation in training and work initiative. I support such an intervention on work and training starting when a child goes to secondary school, but I agree absolutely that it should not be introduced when a child is seven years as he or she is too young.

We intend to address these issues over the coming months. We are trying to ensure that there are no significant financial disincentives for people who want to live together. That is not saying that two-parent families are ideal and that lone-parent families are problematic. The witnesses cited the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child which upholds the idea that every child has a right to know and be cared for by both parents and every child has two parents. We should ensure, as far as possible, that there are no disincentives to both parents to parent together in the family home.

This is a difficult issue for the committee. I do not know whether we should consider commissioning research, if there is no research on the area. It would seem from looking at the figures, where both are on welfare, the difference between the parents living apart or being married or cohabiting is about €70 per week. Where one parent is in receipt of welfare and the other is on the minimum wage, there is the extraordinary difference of approximately €180. Where both parents are working and are on the minimum wage, the difference is approximately €100 a week. These are significant sums of money and I think the figures speak for themselves. It would be very hard to advise a lone parent if he or she were considering whether to get married or cohabit, when such a decision would mean the couple would lose €180 per week. This poses major dilemmas for lone parents and their partners. It influences people's life choices, even though I do not have research to back this up except personal experience of dealing with people in the constituency. The figures speak for themselves.

Do the witnesses know if the same issues arise in other European countries or in New Zealand, which is often held up as an example? Have they ideas on how to crack this nut? Could they suggest an approach to be taken as we are very keen to deal with the issue in a way that is fair for everybody. On the basis of the figures and of members' experience, there is an issue that must be dealt with.

Senator Rónán Mullen

I welcome the speakers and thank them for their presentation as it was very interesting and informative. I echo Deputy Shortall's remarks in many respects, particularly the point that we want to hear the delegates' views and the views of others at this stage when the draft report has been prepared. I noted Deputy Shortall's precise words when she said the tax and welfare systems, as they operate, should not affect people's life choices and that they should be neutral. She rightly points out that it is a difficult nut to crack.

Another difficult nut to crack is the question of family formations. Everybody on the committee and the vast majority of people in public life agree with the essential point that poverty is the key problem and want to support lone parents in positions of disadvantage. However, at the same time I feel obliged to say that the State cannot be neutral on the question of what family formations are most desirable. That is not the same as saying, and it is far from saying, that one opposes the aspirations of people who are currently doing the excellent work of bringing up children and caring for them. We want to support families as we find them but that does not mean that out of some reflex instinct of compassion, we go into denial about what works best for children as a social ideal to promote.

Deputy Shortall is quite right. It is a pity to say that one almost needs to be courageous to say it because I noted carefully Ms Candy Murphy's remarks that the issue was substance rather than form. Will the speakers study the Millennium Cohort Study in 2008, which does not just stress the importance of two parents but emphasises and demonstrates that family structure matters for children and the family structure that helps children the most is a family headed by two biological parents in a low conflict marriage.

We all know there is no guarantee that any particular situation is ideal and what the real world throws up, nonetheless the jury is not out. This is one area where there is no absence of evidence on an international scale. Would it not be better if we focused on supporting lone parents absolutely and unconditionally, but not go into denial about what we want to propose as being most conducive to harmonious society? I ask the delegates to consider that as my first question.

Second, in taking issue with what the report has to say on disincentives, the witnesses say there is no real proof, evidence or research to show that the social welfare differential is actually causing people to go one way or the other. The witnesses may well be correct in stating there may be other factors, and the precise research that interviews people and asks them what factors influence them may not be there. However, if we can establish objectively, and Deputy Shortall has reminded us of figures that are extremely stark, that there is a major differential in terms of financial outcome depending on whether people are cohabiting or married on the one hand, or heading up a lone-parent family on the other, in a sense one does not need the evidence of the cause and effect because there is already an injustice in the system as it pertains. Do the witnesses agree with that assertion? The mere existence of the financial differential should be enough to make us want to take action on it.

Senator Nicky McFadden

I apologise for being late, but I was in my constituency representing a family who were seeking a deposit from the council in order to rent privately. This young lone parent, who is the daughter of a lone parent, works 20 hours per week but is penalised for doing so. I recognise the whole difficulty surrounding rent allowance.

As a lone parent myself, I am entirely in agreement with Ms Murphy's point regarding the general desire among lone parents to secure employment. Such parents want to go out to work in order to give a good example to their children and so on. One Family's research indicates that 84% of lone parents are currently working, looking for work or engaged in education or training. Will Ms Murphy provide a more detailed breakdown of that percentage? I am particularly interested to know how many are working. That figure will surprise many people because it contradicts the myth that lone people do not work and are not interested in bettering themselves.

I received an alarming e-mail yesterday from a constituent regarding a media article that seemed to confirm some of the stereotypical prejudice against lone parents. Will both sets of delegates comment on this shocking report in the Irish edition of The Observer? It indicated that of 50 lone mothers interviewed, 47 are living on a full-time basis with their partners. Moreover, 37 of those partners are working, with the remainder either in receipt of jobseeker’s allowance or disability allowance. I resent the common stereotypical prejudices against lone parents because they do not reflect my experience of their lives. However, I am aware of the difficulties experienced by some local authorities where lone parents are cohabiting and telling lies about it. Such activity is nothing other than fraud.

What are the delegates' views on how we can best address this issue? Ms Murphy referred to a universal parental allowance but I am not sure that will ever happen. The Minister said during the debate on the Social Welfare and Pensions (No. 2) Bill before Christmas that social welfare inspectors do not want to sit outside people's homes to monitor what is going on. That is antiquated and outrageous. We must devise meaningful ways of preventing fraud and ensuring people can earn their living in a decent fashion without having to look over their shoulders. At the same time, lone parents must accept their responsibilities. At the risk of being politically incorrect, everybody must remember that before having children one should be in a position to raise and care for them. I make this point generally and not specifically in regard to lone parents.

Deputy Catherine Byrne

I welcome the delegates and thank them for their presentations. Circumstances have changed for almost everybody in the last year, with many of those now unemployed having never been on the dole before. The substantial decreases in social welfare payments and the termination of community employment schemes have caused hardship for many. The curtailment of certain community employment projects in my own area has left a major gap in terms of employment support services. People who would previously have taken part-time employment now find themselves with nothing to do.

Life has changed for many people and one noticeable aspect of this is the increased number of young men one sees pushing prams, bringing children to and from school and shopping for groceries. Such men have most likely been obliged to adopt a completely different position within family life to what they were used to. These types of dramatic changes in family life affect many people, whether lone parents or married or cohabiting couples. I support Ms Murphy's call for a review of family life. Some of the data with which we are working date as far back as 2000 or 2001.

In many respects the key to a quality family life, whether for lone parents or couples, is having a roof over one's head, that is, a home that is fit for purpose. Whether it is a local authority property, a rental accommodation scheme, RAS, residence or a private dwelling, the most important issue is that it is well maintained. However, there is a major problem in regard to the maintenance of properties in which recipients of rent supplement reside.

Family supports in the community are also important for many parents. Representatives of family resource centres spoke at a meeting of the committee some weeks ago about how they are now seeing people who had never previously required their assistance. We must review the functioning of family resource centres, not only in areas of deprivation — a word I am loath to use — but within communities on a broader basis, with a view to expanding their remit beyond project areas.

Education is the crucial factor for anybody seeking to escape the poverty trap. We have failed miserably in this regard for various reasons, particularly in respect of young people from socially deprived areas whose only experience is of multi-generational unemployment. The only way to target young people of 19 or 20 years of age in those circumstances is through FÁS and community employment schemes. If they do not receive the support they need at that age, they are unlikely to ever secure steady employment. They are competing against people with excellent educational qualifications who because of current economic difficulties are taking up positions they would not have considered two years ago. If we do not put in place effective strategies in communities to encourage people to return to education and work, we will sink further into the hole of economic despair.

I agree with Ms Murphy's position that all children are equal, whether they come from a two-parent family or are raised by a lone parent. All children have the same needs and all children are potentially vulnerable, regardless of social background. The One Family report found that 51% of lone mothers indicated that their children's fathers made no financial contribution to their care. This is an issue that is often raised with me, where young fathers have no contact with their children and make no financial contribution towards raising them. In such cases the entire responsibility for raising the child falls to the young mother. We have discussed on previous occasions the notion of obliging mothers to include the father's name on the birth certificate. It is a matter for the Government or its relevant agencies to ensure such fathers are pursued and obliged to take some responsibility for the children they have brought into the world.

There is much anger at the current situation whereby it is sometimes better for a person not to work but instead to retain his or her various benefits, including medical cards, back to school clothing allowances and so on. I see in my own area that some young people are reluctant to get married because they will be in a worse financial situation if they do so. I agree with the points made by Deputy Shortall in this regard. There are many couples who wish to cohabit or marry but feel unable to do so. If we go down the road of making people feel different because they are working, we will have a significant impact on their lives and their families into the future.

This report highlights the challenges that must be tackled. We could all talk about individual cases we have encountered but it is particularly useful to hear from people who are aware of the day-to-day issues and the broader picture. I thank the delegates for their contributions.

Deputy Seymour Crawford

I also welcome the witnesses and apologise for my late arrival. I assure them that at constituency level, members are dealing non-stop with cases involving lone parents, on whom there is a great deal of pressure at present, and all that goes with that. I cannot help but note Ms Byrne's reference to consultations on the 2006 report, to which respondents from the Border area asked where were the jobs. The position today certainly is no easier than it was in 2006 and one cannot suggest it is easy for lone parents simply to take up a job. In my experience, lone parents wish to return to education, get jobs and better themselves. Very few of them wish to remain in poverty or in a situation with which one might not agree.

In addition, I must comment on the FÁS issue as the idea that people should begin work at 8.30 a.m. in that context is stupid. One positive general feature of community employment schemes was that their managers could run them in a way that facilitated people's return to work, be they lone parents or otherwise, by allowing them to work the requisite weekly number of hours in a manner that suited them. It does not make sense to run such education schemes based on an 8.30 a.m. start. The witnesses' presentations will be valuable to members as they determine how to proceed with the report. Certainly, I do not believe that any members were particularly satisfied with the report as it was presented to them because their local experience provides them with a better understanding than most as to the problems and how difficult it is to get work within the present system.

Deputy Cyprian Brady

I thank both delegations for their clear and helpful presentations and I wish to follow on from Deputy Catherine Byrne's observations regarding the role of fathers. There always has been an issue in respect of engaging with fathers, particularly in the north inner city. While this appears to be changing slightly, has firm evidence been produced or studies made regarding the role of fathers? Although the report notes the existence of a maintenance recovery unit, should we consider establishing a full-scale family support agency such as that in the United Kingdom? My experience is that grandparents play an enormous role, particularly in the inner city. I call it the working grannies syndrome, whereby people of an age at which they should be sitting back are engaged fully in the rearing of children and everything that goes with that. Do the witnesses have views on this issue or on a role for grandparents and how it might fit in?

The witnesses should elaborate on the proposed universal payment, which would not be linked to marital or family status. Universal payments appear to be extremely difficult to implement at the best of times, as has been evident in respect of other payments such as child benefit and so on. The witnesses should elaborate on how the mechanics of such a payment would work and how they envisage its implementation.

Deputy Charlie O’Connor

I also wish to be associated with the warm welcome extended to both delegations and apologise for having been delayed. In my case, I was unable to leave Tallaght on time and beg the Chairman's pardon. The contributions of Deputies Catherine Byrne and Cyprian Brady triggered some pleasant thoughts for me. In response to Deputy Byrne's observations, I recall always having been happy to push the pram in another time of my life. I remember having an amazing experience when my eldest son was one year old and I took him on holidays to London in his pram on my own. I was in London last weekend and the associated memories returned. I was not a lone parent at the time although, in response to Deputy Brady's comments, I now am a lone grandad.

I try to bring my own experiences to my politics and as a Dublin-based Deputy who represents the constituency of Dublin South-West, many of the issues under discussion this morning cross my desk, as they do those of other members, and I have strong views in this regard. Incidentally, if our friend and colleague, the late Séamus Brennan, is looking down on members, I wonder how he views our grasping of these nettles. He bravely made proposals and as a Fianna Fáil Deputy, I can record from the Government benches my frustration that the ideals and vision he expressed on those issues have not really made progress. Other colleagues have provided examples and I have often given officials of my local county council — I am not simply picking on South Dublin County Council because this applies everywhere else — my view regarding housing inspectors lying in bushes and wondering who may be visiting late at night or early in the morning. A different system should be put in place. At the same time, however, as I am sure the witnesses will acknowledge, difficult challenges exist in this regard because neighbours often ask why their daughters should be treated differently and so on.

Senator McFadden referred to the figures published at the weekend and I also seek the witnesses' response in this regard. I believe that for all of us who wish to assist lone parents through their issues, this did not help with perceptions. While I do not doubt the sincerity of the findings or the right of the newspaper to publish them, it elicited a reaction regarding that perception. At my clinics on Saturday, people on both sides of the argument were making points about it. I also agree in respect of the issue of the poverty trap, particularly the issue of rent subsidy. Many lone parents who approach me have housing needs but also wish to work. In my community, like everywhere else, much assistance has been provided in this regard. I take the point made by other members that times are difficult and differ from the position that obtained one or two years ago. However, opportunities still exist in, for example, Tallaght where organisations such as An Cosán and others make a major effort to retrain people and to help them get out.

On my way into Leinster House this morning, I listened to a debate on the "Today with Pat Kenny" radio programme, on which the issue was raised. A lone parent was asked whether she works because she needs the money or because she wishes to get out of the house. While I will not repeat her reply, this sums up the matter. People who approach me make the point that a system should be in operation whereby they can go to work and try to help their families out of the poverty trap without being overly penalised with regard to rent subsidy and other benefits.

Members must continue to examine this issue. Under Deputy Healy-Rae's chairmanship, Deputy Shortall noted that this committee has taken a highly progressive approach in tackling these issues, which is good and healthy. It is also important that members continue to listen to groups such as the witnesses and I do not make this point in a patronising way. I genuinely believe that the Oireachtas joint committee system, which allows delegations to appear before members and share their views frankly, is a good one. I hope that members collectively will be able to make progress on these issues as all of them often experience frustration because the rate of progress in this regard is not good. However, members must tick off the issues and try to facilitate progress on them.

This has been an important meeting as many of the issues members have considered in recent months could be described as poverty trap issues. The remit of the witnesses' organisations certainly falls within that scope. I hope the views expressed by members enable the witnesses to appreciate their enthusiasm to try to deal with these issues. Moreover, the witnesses should continue to keep in touch with the joint committee and should pursue its members regarding the point I made about the late Séamus Brennan. In this Dáil term, whenever it will end, I hope we will be able to look back and say that in response to work done by the Joint Committee on Social and Family Affairs some progress was made on these issues. I am delighted Deputy Enright has returned.

Deputy Joe Carey

I join Deputy O'Connor in welcoming back our spokesperson. It is important to put in context the reason our guests are here, as Deputy Shortall outlined. I did not agree with many of the sentiments expressed in the report produced by Mr. Colm Rapple which examined the financial disincentives to cohabitation and marriage. I thank the delegates for their presentation. I will not go over ground that has been covered. The essential issues are housing, the loss of rent supplement and access to affordable child care services. If we focus on trying to solve these issues, we could have a solution.

I would like to hear the views of the delegates on why the rental accommodation scheme is not used more. How could it be used to a greater extent? The country is full of vacant houses, one of our major problems, yet we have people who cannot find accommodation. Some 33,000 qualify for the rental accommodation scheme but cannot find houses. The solution seems to lie in moving people from the rental allowance to the rental accommodation scheme. This would save the State a lot of money.

I would like to hear the views of the two groups on the €16 reduction in child benefit. This has obviously had a severe impact on lone parents, an issue on which I would like to hear the views of the delegates. Have they received many calls about this? The fear of falling into poverty has increased because of it.

Deputy Thomas Byrne

I apologise for being unavoidably late. Lone parents have a very bad reputation among the public, which is very unfair. There is a perception that they are on a gravy train. As Deputies, we deal with many lone parents on a regular basis and know that it is a difficult existence for many. I support moving away from allowances based on the fact that mothers are unmarried because it tends to lead to discrimination in society which is totally unwarranted. There is also discrimination against their children. We often hear complaints that a person was given a house and is getting so much money but that is not the case. This has also been the experience of colleagues. I want that perception to be taken off the table and, more importantly, families living in poverty to be looked after. The vast majority of lone parents I meet are doing heroic work in rearing their children such as one woman I know who has four children. She has a difficult life but her children are a great credit to her. There are many similar examples. It is important that this is recognised by the social welfare system. The Minister is working on the issue and paying particular attention to the deliberations of this committee. Our deliberations will inform the views of the Minister who I assume is in discussions with the relevant groups.

Ms Candy Murphy

I thank everyone for participating in a really interesting discussion for which I wish we had more time. If I forget to respond to some point, I am sure my colleagues will cover it.

What has been said about rent supplement is very important. If there is one thing on which we are all agreed, it is that rent supplement is a big issue which must be addressed. The reductions have had a bad effect on lone parents and others on low incomes. In many cases they have not been able to have to their rent reduced. They fear moving house because of all the complications when one is in receipt of rent supplement.

I do not know why the rental accommodation scheme has not been expanded. I hear that there are problems with the standard of accommodation produced and reluctance on the part of some local authorities. Given the number of vacant houses, there are opportunities for local authorities to take over large blocks of houses and move people to the rental accommodation scheme which has no poverty traps. One pays a certain percentage of income, regardless of from where it comes. That is what lone parents want and I hope the committee will be able to do something about it.

One of the main points concerns the disincentive effects. The original proposal in the support scheme introduced by the late Séamus Brennan was that qualified adults also receive the parental allowance. The other way of looking at this is that one parent in each family should receive a full payment. This would remove the disincentive in moving the other way. One would get rid of qualified adult status and provide a parental allowance equal to the one parent family payment, which what is happens in other countries. Advanced economies do not provide for dependency status. Adults receive a certain payment whether they are in one or two parent families. We are due to go on a study visit to Scandinavia with Eurochild to examine why lone parents in Scandinavia are not poor and how they manage to combine work and caring, even though we already have a good idea of what the answers are. It will be a useful visit and perhaps we can feed the results to the committee.

We must be careful if we choose the parental allowance and apply the measure to a child at the age of 12 years. In England, where there was a gradual move in this direction, it was made compulsory for local authorities to provide an adequate after-school service. I have grave concerns about lone parents being criticised, being out of work and leaving their children at home with no one to care for them. I agree that there must be compulsion on the part of the State but it must be to ensure an adequate after-school service before we progress in this way.

Educational qualifications are key. That is what the lone parents who participate in our initial back to work or back to education programmes want. There is a key role for FÁS to play but there is also a key role for second-chance education programmes. We are receiving more and more calls from lone parents who report cuts in grants in returning to education. In an evaluation of our programme one of the most wonderful things we have seen is the way the lone parents who have not worked in interesting jobs value securing qualifications for themselves or their children. This has an impact. There is an opportunity to develop routes for lone parents to make the journey from where they stand in terms of education, training and their needs in order that they can move from welfare to well paid work. Our research shows that if lone parents take on work that is not well paid, it has a negative effect on children. One is trying to balance being the only parent working and being on a low income. Work must lead to a higher income; therefore, one must seek higher qualifications.

Given the disincentives, we should engage in a major campaign to tell people that lone parenthood equals poverty. I say this frivolously. One may think there is a big incentive in receiving €100 per week but why are there much higher rates of poverty among lone parents? Living on one income, even if it is higher than two, is much harder. The UK is moving towards removing the qualified adult status and supporting this, and they see that having two people living together is not as expensive as a person living on his or her own. Important issues are raised with regard to the technicalities which I cannot go into as I am rushing through it.

Supporting fathers is very important. Low conflict families were mentioned and this is a very important area in which we are working. We want to see more fathers involved. We recently had a seminar on the Law Reform Commission's report on family relationships and very important issues were raised that the committee should examine. The report considers the role of fathers and grandparents and how we support fathers' involvement. As we all know mothers and fathers do not always live together. They may have to share parenting in a different way and we must support families for which that is best. We need to examine how to do this better.

Perhaps the committee could recommend that more emphasis be placed on non-resident fathers being part of the Growing Up in Ireland survey. I understood that non-resident fathers' views were not given in the first tranche. The figures I gave were on mothers' perceptions. Perhaps the committee could recommend that this be examined more by the survey, which is a key source of information.

The family based on marriage was mentioned. The European Convention on Human Rights, to which we are a signatory, recognises the family based on the reality of family life and Ireland is increasingly out of step in this regard. The fact that we have marital and non-marital families in various situations creates problems for the children's rights referendum and we must consider this.

We are against fraud and we hear the same stories as committee members. We deal with lone parents and nobody enters lone parenthood lightly. I have never met anyone who entered it for €100 a week. We must examine why it happens, how we can make it better, how we can encourage varying forms of family life and how we can reduce conflict in relationships. All of these matters are very complicated and I know all committee members know this.

We campaigned with OPEN and other organisations against the reduction in child benefit. Child benefit is the only universal payment made to all families. It is the only recognition in Ireland of the cost of bringing up children. It should not have been cut. We support early pre-school education and we would like to see it expanded as it is very important. I apologise for rushing through everything. If I missed anything members can come back to me.

Ms Frances Byrne

I thank the Chairman and join in welcoming back Deputy Enright. Whoever looked after her office in her absence did so very well because I received many phone calls and e-mails, so much so that I was surprised to see she was back. With the greatest respect she is back with a bang because she raised very important questions. OPEN has deep dark questions about poverty-proofing because one wonders how budgets during the boom that spent less money on social welfare got through poverty-proofing. This area must be examined and in the current context it is becoming even more important because previously we had more money for social welfare increases.

With regard to the suitability of courses, lone parents speak about the three Cs which they are traditionally offered, and these are computers, child care and communications. Our point was not so much on the suitability of courses, although it is an issue and I know from previous meetings with the committee that Deputies and Senators have reflected awareness of concepts and perceptions about lone parents, as Deputy Byrne mentioned. These translate into a view that anything will do them in education and training. A big effort has been made in FÁS and this must be recognised. Our point is that this is all very well and it is welcome but at some point, perhaps when children reach a certain age or when, as Deputy Brady described, the great granny, granddad, uncle or aunt steps in to help with child care, loan parents find themselves able to engage in longer or higher quality training and discover that one may be superwoman or superman, as Senator McFadden described, to get over the barriers but one cannot be at or on the way to the school or training centre at 8.30 a.m. Suitability is also an important point.

A number of committee members raised the idea of a parental allowance and universal payment. We referred back to the late Minister's proposals of 2006 which envisaged a universal payment and, as Ms Murphy described, going into all low-income households regardless of whether they had one or two parents or people's marital status. We support this and have long-standing partnerships with two projects in Finland, one in a rural and one in an urban context, and this is what makes a difference. A number of years ago I sat opposite the counterpart of the Minister, Deputy Hanafin, in Finland. She produced a beautiful box full of goodies, with the box itself meant as an alternative to a bassinet for all small babies. Because it was in Finland it was reinforced and everything in it, such as a snowsuit, was of the highest quality. Every mother in the country received it, therefore there was no stigma about a highly-paid person receiving it and people on the social welfare system also received it.

We wanted to put forward a universal approach and the difficulties behind the proposals, as raised by Deputy Catherine Byrne, are how they translate on the ground and the differences between families and perceptions about families. We have fallen behind because it is now four years later and the tweaking required has not been done. If one were to design a social welfare system that had within it the best types of family support and moving people out of poverty, one would not design the system that we have. To be fair, the Department is in a very difficult position trying to reform something based on a male breadwinner model and very traditional and old-fashioned notions about how people organise their lives.

We support One Family in respectfully suggesting to the committee that the perceptions of dads be included and we would also include lone fathers rearing children. Some work was done by the National Economic and Social Forum, NESF, team on which we and OPEN sat. Professor Corcoran at NUI Maynooth also did work on it. The problem is that in speaking to mothers on their own and fathers on their own, one does not get to the same families.

Deputy Enright also asked about patterns and flows. We asked for this information as far back as 2000 but we were not able to receive it. The Department was also on the NESF team. An issue is raised with regard to the figures used and movement. For some people it is a transitional matter and for others it is to do with where they live, as Deputy Crawford stated. People receive the payment because they could not remain in work when they became a lone parent and the other parent is not around for child care. It is very complex and all committee members have reflected these complexities.

I am delighted to hear that the committee is considering an examination of the rental accommodation scheme versus rent supplement. I respectfully suggest that the committee invites Threshold to come before it because it would have ideas on the matter. Like us, it was part of the beginning of the scheme and it has remained involved in its various committees. It has been our experience, particularly in the Dublin City Council area, that local authorities and tenants have a huge desire and the problem is standards. Outside Dublin the picture is far more mixed. I am very disappointed to hear the two Departments are not working together on it; perhaps there are fiscal reasons for this. It is the way forward and would remove people from a system fraught with poverty traps to do with hours and the amount of money people are able to earn. It also means ridiculous difficulties if somebody receives overtime or faces a year of uncertainty with regard to work.

There is absolutely no doubt that people will be on average €70 a week worse off if they get together. We researched this a number of years ago and discovered people would be €40 a week worse off. We tried to make this point in our submission but it is very difficult. Deputy Shortall spoke about this most eloquently and it is in the draft report. Neither members nor I would wish to see extrapolation that suggests people are moving into lone parenthood as a result. If someone receives an allowance of between €70 and €180 and wants to re-unite with his or her partner or enter a new relationship with someone who is also on a low income; that is a reality. However, we are concerned that the reverse would also be regarded as true.

Deputy Róisín Shortall

To clarify, nobody suggested that.

Ms Frances Byrne

I know that and I appreciate hearing it. That was where we were coming from in our submission. The figures speak for themselves and that is worrying. The answer, complex though it is, lies in the original paper. We share members' frustration at the lack of progress, although we equally acknowledge that major reforms are required. Child care provision was not as thoroughly established during the boom as it should have been. To answer Deputy Enright's question, the changes to the early child care supplement were disappointing but we would have gone a different route from the outset. We abhor the reduction across the board in child benefit because the poor are most hurt by it. The way it was returned to those on low incomes caused huge confusion among lone parents. Before Christmas, I found myself in Ballymun, in Deputy Shortall's constituency, with a group of lone parents and it took one and a half hours to work out the implications of the change.

Ms Karen Kiernan

The report clearly addresses the general issue of financial disincentives. Further research on other jurisdictions would be very valuable. I appreciate the anecdotal experiences shared by members but we are not hearing similar stories from the people with whom we work, who are struggling to parent on their own. I do not doubt that some people experience disincentives, however. In April, we will visit two Scandinavian countries as part of an international study tour. We will invite an official from the Department of Social and Family Affairs to join us with a view to bringing back knowledge. The Council of Europe's family policy database provides a mine of information and I refer members to it. Data is available on some 40 countries and one can easily identify the critical success factors for countries such as Sweden in terms of why lone parents are working and out of poverty. Much of this success is based on universality. The purpose of our tour is to see what can be applied in Ireland.

While FÁS can speak for itself, it has funded two programmes for One Family so that we could investigate personal and family barriers in a holistic way. We look to this committee to help us deal with structural barriers. We are able to assist lone parents towards the labour market through our new futures and new steps programmes but they continue to face child care and after school problems. Employers' inflexibility is a big issue. In other jurisdictions, flexible and part-time work arrangements are included in social partnership processes.

The Department's data and statistics unit has been requested to investigate the length of time in which people are in receipt of the payment and why they move away from it. Are they forming relationships or entering employment?

Parenting and family support is our bread and butter. We are working successfully with all the family resource centres in the south east to upskill them in dealing with one parent families. We are clearly aware of the need to share our learning.

In regard to Senator Mullen's question on family structure, we continue to believe the Constitution is unfair and that substance is more important than form. The love and stability that families can provide is more important than their legal form. Certain factors may coincide with family structures but it is possible for us as a society to support people who face specific challenges, such as one parent families, to do just as well as other forms of family.

Chairman

I welcome my colleague from south Kerry, Deputy Tom Sheahan.

Deputy Tom Sheahan

I preface my comments as a married father of four. In my former life, I employed approximately 20 ladies. I recall one lady who was a lone parent of three children advising another member of staff that she should get pregnant in order to get the council house and the book, which is the bible, while working 20 hours per week. I regarded this as another part of the curriculum for those who did not go to college. I stress this was merely a personal situation which I encountered. In another instance, a lone parent had four children with the same father. How can one argue that such a couple are not living together? Let us be blunt; the lone parent allowance is being abused by some.

Deputy Róisín Shortall

With respect, it is not appropriate to go down this road at this point in the meeting. We have been here since 11 a.m.

Chairman

I know. We are concluding.

Deputy Róisín Shortall

We were addressing a particular issue which the Deputy is now attempting to broaden into other areas. It is not fair because we were not given notice about it.

Chairman

I am sorry. I allowed him to contribute and welcomed him from south Kerry.

Deputy Tom Sheahan

I will conclude.

Deputy Róisín Shortall

He is making a comment that requires a response on an entirely separate issue.

Chairman

If the delegates wish to respond briefly, they may do so.

Ms Frances Byrne

I will address Deputy Sheahan's comments. Our groups in County Kerry would be very disappointed by his intervention. I did not address the issue of fraudulent cohabitation because the committee has engaged us in such a wide range of areas. We unreservedly condemn social welfare fraud. The people who are most hurt by it are those in receipt of social welfare. We have always argued for a robust social welfare system. The danger in sharing anecdotal evidence is that we can all outline similar examples. With the Chairman's permission, I will describe the reality. The latest poverty figures were issued in November 2009. I would like to read them very quickly. They are on page 12 of our submission. Nearly one in five people in lone-parent households was in consistent poverty in 2008, and that is the poverty which nobody argues about and the Government accepts as a valid measure. Lone-parent households continue to be the household type with the highest at risk of poverty rate, with a rate of 36.4% being recorded for individuals in those households.

Lone-parent households reported the highest deprivation levels of any household type, with nearly a quarter of individuals in those households experiencing three or more of the deprivation items, which I will come to in a moment. Some 55% of individuals from those households are experiencing one or more items of deprivation compared with 25% at State level. Almost a quarter experience three or more.

These items include the following: having to go without heating at some stage last year; being unable to afford a morning, afternoon or evening out in the past fortnight; being unable to afford two pairs of strong shoes; being unable to afford a roast once a week; being unable to afford a meal with chicken or other meat or fish every second day; being unable to afford new — not second-hand — clothes; being unable to afford a warm waterproof coat; being unable to afford to keep the home adequately warm; being unable to afford to replace worn-out furniture; being unable to afford to have family or friends for a drink or a meal once a month; and being unable to afford to buy presents for family or friends at least once a year.

The chief executive of Barnardos, Mr. Fergus Finlay, and we have pointed out that some lone-parent families in Ireland dread their children being invited to a birthday party because they cannot afford to get a present for the child or would be expected to have parties, etc. We have evidence to back that claim. That is the reality which should be informing members' thinking. I thank the committee and Chairman for allowing me to reply.

Chairman

I thank the representatives of One Family and OPEN for coming here today and sharing their experience and valuable insight with the committee. It will inform the committee in its future deliberations on the subject.

The joint committee adjourned at 12.50 p.m. until 11 a.m. on Wednesday, 3 February 2010.