Joint Committee on Social Protection díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 8 Nov 2016

Lone Parents: Discussion

Chairman

I welcome Dr. Michelle Millar and Dr. Rosemary Crosse, authors of the report, Lone Parents and Activation, What Works and Why. I also welcome Ms June Tinsley, head of advocacy with Barnardos; and Ms Louise Bayliss and Ms Samantha Dunne of Single Parents Acting for the Rights of our Kids, SPARK. I propose to ask Dr. Millar and Dr. Crosse to first make their opening remarks, followed by Ms Tinsley, Ms Bayliss and Ms Dunne. Members will then be invited to ask any questions for the witnesses.

Before asking witnesses to make their presentations, I wish to draw their attention to the fact that by virtue of section 17(2)(l) of the Defamation Act 2009, witnesses are protected by absolute privilege in respect of their evidence to this committee. However, if witnesses are directed by the committee to cease giving evidence on a particular matter and they continue to do so, they are entitled thereafter only to qualified privilege in respect of their evidence. Witnesses are directed that only evidence connected with the subject matter of these proceedings is to be given. They are asked to respect the parliamentary practice that, where possible, they should not criticise or make charges against any person or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable. The opening statements to the committee will be published on the committee website after the meeting. Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the Houses or an official either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.

We have already heard the first mistake with the interference through the speakers. If anybody has a mobile phone, I ask that it either be turned off or switched to flight mode. That would be appreciated as apart from interfering with the meeting, it interferes with the recording of proceedings.

Dr. Michelle Millar

I thank the members for inviting us here today to discuss our research on lone parent labour market activation. Our research was funded by the Irish Research Council and the Department of Social Protection under the Department of Social Protection research innovation award. We investigated best practice and innovative approaches to the labour market activation of lone parents in Ireland and internationally.

The research considered approaches to labour market activation that have the potential to create good outcomes for lone parents and their children in terms of achieving financial independence and social well-being. The evidence was then grounded in its application to the Irish context by giving due consideration to the profile of Irish lone parents and the barriers to paid employment they experience, as well as the relevance and applicability of such approaches to the Irish policy landscape.

The methodological approach to this research encompassed two parts - theoretical and empirical. The theoretical part consisted of a thorough review of the academic literature to identify best international and Irish practice and innovative approaches in the activation of lone parents, taking account of good outcomes. The empirical part of this study targeted organisations, projects and stakeholders delivering activation supports to lone parents, as well as actors from organisations representing those parenting alone. The conclusions and recommendations from the report are derived from the thorough review of the national and international evidence in conjunction with the Irish expert evidence obtained through the analysis of the empirical data.

One of the greatest concerns of those interviewed about the policy changes is the reduction in the combined income of those one-parent family payment recipients who were in part-time employment prior to the change. With the exception of those countries that introduced a time limit on welfare payments, there is no evidence of activation resulting in lone parents in receipt of welfare being financially worse off as a result of policy change. Policy often has unintended consequences but if the premise of activation policy is to reduce poverty levels by increasing the number of lone parents in paid employment, then a policy which results in lone parents in paid employment being financially worse off has evidently created an unintended consequence and needs revision. This neither encourages welfare recipients to enter into employment nor will it result in an increase in the income of the household; rather, it has the perverse effect of encouraging welfare dependency and reducing household income.

Critiques of lone-parent activation policies centre on the capacity of activation to deliver an adequate income for single-parent families and that full-time employment is neither desirable nor practical in a home with one parent. Overall, the research suggests that a package of supports is the most effective way to assist lone parents into sustainable employment and to ensure that income levels are sufficient to lift lone parents out of poverty. Indeed it is the combination of measures that is required to make an impact as the sum is greater than the parts. Ireland’s activation policy for lone parents is to categorise them as jobseekers and there are no exceptions made for the fact that they are parenting alone. Unlike other countries, there are no plans for a lone-parent-tailored approach to activation that takes into consideration the unique challenges and barriers to employment they experience. The capacity of a lone parent to work and care cannot be equated to that of a two-parent family; they only have half the time resources available to them that coupled parents have. We recommend that a package of supports for lone parents in Ireland should encompass pre-employment supports, employment supports, financial support and child care support.

With regard to pre-employment supports, given the characteristics of one-parent family payment recipients not working, an education and training-first approach will be required to increase their capacity to attain and sustain paid employment. The 2011 census shows that 40.8% of all Irish lone parents have not completed second level education. In most countries, participation in education and training is a prerequisite prior to moving from social protection into paid employment. There is an important association between receiving training and moving into work and retaining employment. International evidence suggests that lone parents with low levels of education generally participate in low-wage, low-skill service industry jobs, typically on a part-time basis. Educational attainment is persistently identified as a significant factor in reducing welfare dependency and providing a sustainable income for lone parents and their children.

The literature suggests that the role of the equivalent of the Intreo case worker in facilitating the progression of lone parents is fundamental both at the pre-employment stage and continually thereafter.

Such support is regarded as simple and effective, and it is also a low cost policy option which is linked to job retention. However, the research also suggests those lone parents close to the labour market benefit most from this type of assistance, again reiterating the importance of education and training for many lone parents. Case workers require specific training on the challenges faced by lone parents in their everyday lives. The research shows that case workers who take an empathetic approach to dealing with lone parents and build a relationship based on mutual respect and trust are more effective in their role. Training is required to achieve this approach.

I will now deal with employment supports. While activation programmes have been successful in increasing lone parent participation in employment, particularly for work-ready lone parents, those more distant from the labour market require more intensive support. Many lone parents will require ongoing contact and support from case workers when they are in employment.

In regard to financial supports, we need to ensure income adequacy for lone parents and their families in order to make work pay. The literature highlights how activation can lead to in-work poverty. Such lone parents require higher amounts of in-work financial support, which has been proven to reduce poverty in this group of lone parent households. Given the tendency for lone parents coming off the one-parent family payment to work in low-skilled, low-income employment and for some to favour part-time work which is often low paid, this is a pertinent issue. In-work benefits require flexibility and responsiveness to the lived labour market experiences of lone parents. Policy makers have yet to legislate for the maintenance of those lone parents who have been moved to jobseekers' payments. This requires attention.

The cost of child care is a significant disincentive to lone parent employment. The literature shows that subsidies have significant positive effects on the use of child care in lone parent and low-income families and are proven to contribute to sustainable employment. The issue of child care availability needs to be addressed, ensuring that there are adequate child care places available in the localities where they are required. Flexibility in child care provision is seen as an important factor in determining child care usage for lone parents. In many cases, care is still required for children over the age of 14 years. This issue may be resolved by collaboration between State and community sectors.

While poverty levels experienced by lone parents are a significant problem, we question the capacity of the current activation policy to deliver an adequate income for these families. The evidence in relation to activation improving the economic wellbeing of lone parent families is mixed and recent poverty data demonstrate the implementation of activation programmes has not led to a decrease in poverty levels among lone parents in the EU and OECD. Low-paid employment is seen to have no positive effects on the lives of lone parents, with precarious employment leading to precariousness in all aspects of their and their children’s lives. Labour market activation of lone parents represents a major change in how social protection policy views lone parents. Such a change requires ongoing monitoring and evaluation to measure the impact of the policy on employment outcomes, employment supports, poverty levels and wellbeing to ensure that the policy aims of increasing paid employment and tackling poverty levels in lone parent families is achieved.

Chairman

I thank Dr. Millar for her opening statement. I invite Ms Tinsley to make her opening statement.

Ms June Tinsley

I thank the Chairman and members for the invitation to address the committee on its work on lone parents and their children.

Barnardos is Ireland's children's charity and we worked with more than 13,000 children and families in 2015, at least 35% of whom were lone parent households. We offer a range of services such as family support, early years services, one-to-one parenting support and the guardian ad litem service.

Barnardos believes that any discussion on lone parents must start by realising they are not a homogenous group.

They are parenting alone because they are single, separated, divorced or widowed. They span all age categories. From the child’s perspective, the reality is that many of these parents are co-parenting with their ex-partners.

We know that one in five children is living in a lone-parent household. The diversity behind those front doors is striking. Approximately 53% of lone parents are in employment. Over 40% of lone parents have not completed second level education. This has an impact on the types of jobs available to them. Most lone parents who are in employment are in skilled, semi-skilled or unskilled work that offers low wages. Unfortunately, the combination of low levels of education, low wages and welfare dependency means that children living in one-parent family households are twice as likely as other children to live in consistent poverty. Rates of deprivation are also much higher in lone-parent households, with 60% of such households with one or more children experiencing deprivation. This compares with a rate of 29% among the general population. In terms of the impact on well-being, it has been found that children in lone-parent families are more likely to suffer from long-term illness or disability than the children of married or cohabiting couples. There is also a significantly higher level of social difficulty among such children, some of whom engage in more unhealthy dietary habits.

We know from our day-to-day work with lone-parent families that living on the breadline means living from day to day, being unable to save, experiencing constant stress about being able to provide for family members, having parental feelings of inadequacy and dreading unexpected bills. An atmosphere of dread can be associated with children's birthday invites and special occasions. Children are perceptive to stresses. They often internalise their feelings and actions because they do not want to place further financial pressures on their parents. As one lone parent aptly described it to me:

Not being able to provide things for your child is an everyday life struggle. I don’t believe in spoiling children but you should be able to buy them at least something or let them do an activity or sport they enjoy and if you do then something else has to suffer. You just haven’t got the money. Once you pay your bills the next thing is buying food for the week and then you can literally count the pennies on one hand that’s left. You want to be able to have the price of an ice-cream for your child or pay the €2 a week for soccer, it's only a bit of change but most weeks you just can’t do it. To say no to your own child so often is just heart-breaking.

I was told by another lone parent that not being able to afford medicine for her son because they are not covered on the medical card makes her feel inadequate and makes him more vulnerable.

I wish to speak about what has been done to support lone-parent families. We know there are ongoing concerns at a policy level about the increase in jobless households in Ireland. The continuing mantra that a job is the route out of poverty led to the reform of the one-parent family payment scheme, the aim of which was to increase the participation of lone parents in the labour market. These reforms, which were rolled out from 2011 to 2015, lowered the age of eligibility of the youngest child from 18 to seven. We believe that when these reforms were pushed through, there was a failure to recognise that because lone parents are full-time carers to their children, work and family responsibilities are much harder on them than on couples or married families. Our view is that the biggest flaw in these reforms was that they were not accompanied with sufficient supports, such as quality affordable child care, to enable and support lone parents to take up training or employment.

As Dr. Millar outlined, a major unintended consequence of these reforms has been that many lone parents who were in employment have ended up being financially worse off, with many of them having to leave their jobs. More recent policy developments and announcements have tried to ameliorate this to some small extent. For example, budget 2017 saw the partial restoration of the weekly income disregard that applies to lone parents when it was increased from €90 to €110. This single measure will help to keep some lone parents in employment. There has been an increase in investment in subsidised child care to help to address the exorbitant high fees that are charged to parents. While investment in this sector is much needed and is preferable to other approaches such as tax credits, Ireland is starting from a very low base so it will be a while before parents feel the real benefit. It is crucial for the new single affordable child care programme to guarantee that the current recipients of various child care schemes are not worse off. It is also crucial that there is in-built flexibility in the system to facilitate parental transitions, school holidays, school pick-ups and shift work patterns.

Barnardos has reflected on what can be done to improve outcomes for children.

When considering how we, as a society, can improve the outcomes for children in lone parent families, we must remember that family type is not the strongest predictor of a child's well-being. The mother's education level and the quality of the parent-child relationship are far more important to a child's development than any other factor. Therefore, the promotion of positive and confident parenting and the availability of timely interventions are among the most effective steps the State can take to improve outcomes for children. This combination can break down cycles of disadvantage and poverty and benefit all children, not only those in lone-parent families. The evidence is unequivocal. There are few differences in the abilities of babies across the socio-economic spectrum at birth. However, by the age of three years some concerning differences emerge as a child's life experiences are shaped by parents and environment.

Barnardos agrees with the assessment of one lone parent that inequality is embedded across societal structures. This raises the question of why children's futures are so predictable with reference to what their parents earn or where they live. Do all children not deserve to be cherished equally and given the same opportunities to thrive and reach their potential, irrespective of household income or parental marital status? Barnardos has put forward several recommendations for the committee to consider in answer to that question. We believe we need to create a level playing field and tackle child poverty. The way to do this is through a combination of adequate income supports and quality accessible public services.

One of our recommendations in the area of income supports relates to the need to recognise that the cost of going to work is higher on lone parents since they do not have other incomes of which to avail. Costs such as those arising from transport and child care need to be factored in when considering whether to take up work or training. Subsequently, in-work supports, such as the family income supplement, are crucial to ensuring that starting work yields an increase in household income. Greater flexibility with the 19 hours criteria applicable to the family income supplement is needed to ensure more lone parents can take up work, even if it is of the low-paid variety.

Child benefit is another matter that requires consideration. Given the additional cost of rearing teenagers, a higher rate of child benefit should be paid to those children aged over 12 years. That has been long recommended by the Vincentian Partnership for Social Justice, which has calculated that families with teenagers are living further below the poverty line than other family types.

The rates of the back-to-school clothing and footwear allowance should be increased. Barnardos has consistently raised the issue of the extraordinary financial burden of school costs on parents. We continue to call for the provision of a genuinely free primary education system, as envisaged in the Constitution. Until that is attained, we believe that the back-to-school clothing and footwear allowance should be increased because it was harshly cut during the recession. Since it is a targeted payment, it hurt those most in need. The current rates of €100 for a primary school pupil and €200 per secondary school pupil are simply too little when compared against the current costs of school uniforms, shoes and other associated costs.

Barnardos was pleased to see the extension of the school meals programme to some non-DEIS schools in budget 2017. We are awaiting further information on this measure but it is to be welcomed because we know that over 55% of children from disadvantaged areas do not attend a DEIS school.

Barnardos is keen to highlight a number of public services that we believe are crucial to improving the lives of all children, especially those from lone-parent households. Quality affordable child care and after-school care are crucial in this regard. As mentioned already, this sector received a much-needed boost, but it should only be seen as a stepping stone toward the roll out of a comprehensive quality subsidised model of child care and after-school care. Without this, there can be no expectation on lone parents to take up full-time work since, understandably, their caring duties will take priority. Barnardos particularly welcomed the universal aspect of the child care proposals announced in budget 2017 because the measure finally recognises the value of early years care and education on a child's development, as opposed to simply facilitating the return to work of parents.

We know that the first three years of a child's life are crucial in determining future outcomes. Investment in quality child care improves a child's social and emotional development and enhances school readiness, which, in turn, improves long-term outcomes and generates Exchequer savings in future. However, continued investment in this area is required to keep Ireland apace with other European countries, which spend on average 0.8% of GDP on this sector whereas we spend approximately 0.3% by comparison. Ensuring high-quality provision throughout the sector, the regulation of child minders and the development of a comprehensive out-of-school care system are needed to guarantee improved outcomes for children and support for lone parents.

Timely family support is another key recommendation from Barnardos because we all know that parents struggle at different times, some more than others. Some can rely on family and friends to assist them through these times but others need more intensive targeted support. Evaluations of effective parenting supports show clear benefits to families in addressing issues and preventing problems escalating. Barnardos has always been a strong advocate of prevention and early intervention approaches and believes investment in key supports such as the ABC programmes, Tusla family support workers and other programmes, such as Triple P or the partnership with parents that we run, should be beefed up.

Childhood is time limited so any delay in accessing appropriate supports, for example, in the education system or health supports, can seriously impede the child’s development and is a significant stressor on family life particularly for lone parents who are on their own. Barnardos works with many families whose children are languishing on lengthy waiting lists to get either assessed or treated for a range of issues spanning speech and language, mental health supports or educational supports. We also work with families living in hotels or in overcrowded situations who are desperately trying to secure alternative accommodation that is simply not there. There are no simple solutions for child poverty. Every family is different and accordingly diverse solutions are required. Only through a combination of adequate income supports and accessible quality public services will children’s lives improve and the cycles of intergenerational poverty that are so prevalent among lone parent families be broken.

Ms Louise Bayliss

I thank the Chairman and members for the opportunity to discuss our concerns regarding lone parents. We would like to briefly cover six issues: child poverty, education, housing, child maintenance, a single affordable child care scheme and anomalies in budget 2017.

Ireland has a worryingly high child poverty rate. The overall consistent poverty rate in Ireland is 8%, yet for children it is 11.2%. However, if we break down consistent poverty rates for children by household composition, a different picture appears. The consistent poverty rate is 22.1% for children in lone-parent families and 7.9% for two-parent families with fewer than four children. Any discussion about reducing child poverty must therefore focus on children in lone parent families. All young people younger than 18 are legally seen as minors and a policy that forces a parent with sole responsibility for raising a teenager to work full time is not in a child’s best interest.

Much has been written about the changes to the one-parent family payment, which now stops when the youngest child turns seven. Many people believe this is in line with international best practice and point out that internationally, parents can lose this support when a child turns three or five. However, although those parents are expected to seek training or a job before their child turns seven, once they do there are financial and other supports available to enable their participation. In the UK, for example, lone parents working 12 hours per week are entitled to working credits. They can breach the benefits cap and are entitled to higher housing benefit to reward them for working.

Work is seen as the route out of poverty but for lone parents in Ireland, the infrastructure is not in place to ensure work pays. The recent changes in Ireland cut the income of a parent working 20 hours on minimum wage by 17%. In many cases, due to rules around rent supplement and high child care costs for many lone parents, this loss now means they are financially better off by not working. Far from encouraging economic independence, the policy is trapping lone parents into long-term social welfare dependency.

The changes have exacerbated the problem for lone parents accessing education. In the programme for partnership Government, the Government committed to publishing recommendations from an independent report commissioned to identify the barriers to accessing higher education for lone parents in advance of budget 2017. Although the report has been commissioned, we are concerned that it was not published in the agreed timescale and that the barriers will remain in place for at least another year.

Lone parents accessing education and training board, ETB or SOLAS courses are being forced to drop out or face financial losses. Lone parents are paid a training allowance instead of a primary social welfare payment when doing these courses. Many of these courses operate on a clock-in basis and any time missing or late attendance results in a financial penalty.

This system does not accommodate the dual role of a lone parent. Many of the courses start at 8.30 a.m., which does not facilitate a lone parent who has to drop a child to school. If a parent must stay at home to mind a sick child, he or she loses a full day's pay. Likewise, if a parent must bring a child to a dental or medical appointment, he or she loses a day's pay. A lone parent who participates in these courses is paying a minimum of €15 per week for child care out of their weekly qualified child increase of €29.80. This shows a significant investment by the parent in the course. However, the risk of losing money if the parent has a sick child is an unfair additional barrier that is forcing lone parents out of training at a time when Intreo offices are pushing them into courses.

Lone parents on rent supplement have no access to higher education unless they transfer to the back to education allowance. However, they cannot receive the maintenance portion of SUSI if they are on the back to education allowance. The SUSI grant is completely necessary to support the additional transport and child care costs associated with attending college. In effect, a lone parent's access is being determined by his or her housing status and this is discriminatory. The Department of Social Protection has confirmed that lone parents on jobseeker's transitional payment, JST, can engage in postgraduate studies. In practice, however, local offices are suspending lone parents' payments when they are studying at postgraduate level. Parents are being told that they must stop studying or forfeit their payments. The purpose of the policy was to encourage activation and it is therefore essential that all local Intreo offices are fully aware that lone parents are entitled to study while on JST.

Housing is a huge issue generally, but it is disproportionately affecting lone parents. This is reflected in the recent homelessness figures released for September. Although our families make up only 25% of families generally, more than 66% of homeless families are lone parents. While we acknowledge there is now a housing plan in place, we are concerned about the barriers still in place for people on rent supplement. We feel that if the rules around rent supplement were relaxed until there was a robust housing stock, many of the education and work barriers would be alleviated for lone parents. We are also concerned about the risk of homelessness caused by the cessation of the mortgage interest supplement. In a one-parent family, if the parent contracts a long-term illness, there is a real risk that the family will lose their home as there is no support for people who are paying a mortgage.

We have raised on many occasions the issue of child maintenance. In Ireland, the discussion around lone parent poverty focuses on work or social welfare and we believe this ignores the important potential income stream of child maintenance. Child maintenance payments could have two major benefits. It could be used to lever children out of poverty, and parents who pay child maintenance are more likely to have frequent contact with their children than those who do not pay. We are one of the few countries that does not have a statutory maintenance agency. Custodial parents are forced to seek maintenance through a combative court system and they are also responsible for pursuing non-payment. Even when maintenance is paid, 100% of it is deducted from rent supplement or 50% from other social welfare payments. One of the greatest anomalies of the changes that occurred recently is in relation to maintenance. Under the one-parent family payment, the liable relative has a legal obligation to the Department of Social Protection to pay maintenance. This now stops when a child turns seven years of age, at which point the Department writes to tell the liable relative that he or she has no further obligation to the Department. This has resulted in a 28% decrease in parents receiving maintenance. Despite this, lone parents are now being told that unless they seek maintenance, they will face financial sanctions. This ignores the reality that lone parents cannot always pursue maintenance if they do not have an address for the other parent and it is not always safe to make contact with the other parent.

While we broadly welcome the introduction of the single affordable child care scheme, we have concerns that the abolition of child care education and training support, CETS, and community employment child care, CEC, will have a detrimental effect on lone parents in training courses and on community employment, CE, schemes. Currently, parents on these schemes can avail of child care that caps their weekly contribution at between €15 and €25 per week. There is no guarantee as to what the parental contribution will be in the new scheme and it may vary geographically. A lone parent receiving €29.80 per week per child is not in a position to withstand increases in his or her contribution and will be forced out of courses at the same time that Intreo will be instructing him or her to undertake courses. The Department has acknowledged that this is an issue and has ensured that there will be transitionary arrangements to mitigate the impact on those already in training.

However, our concerns focus on new entrants who will be effectively barred from community employment schemes and training courses. Lone parents on low wages and precarious hours use local childminders who can be flexible and charge only for hours needed and can facilitate weekend and evening work. These parents will receive no benefit from the scheme.

I want to refer to the anomalies in budget 2017. We welcome the partial restoration of the income disregard for the one-parent family allowance and the jobseeker's transitional payment, the partial restoration of the Christmas bonus and the increase in the basic social rate. However, there has been no corresponding increase for family income supplement recipients. This means that although the reforms were intended to encourage lone parents off social welfare and onto an in-work payment, many parents who transferred to the family income supplement will now be better off transferring back to a social welfare payment such as the jobseeker's transitional payment. For example, a lone parent earning €210 with one child and receiving €75 maintenance will be over €50 per week better off if they come off the family income supplement and return to the jobseeker's transitional payment. The purpose of the policy was to encourage lone parents into employment and training, yet the parents who have been most impacted are lone parents who were already working 19 plus hours and those in education and training. This must be seen as proof that it is a failed policy and needs urgent reform to ensure our children are given the same opportunities as every other child.

Chairman

I thank Ms Bayliss for her opening statement. I will open the discussion to colleagues, starting with Deputy O'Dea, to be followed by other members and then I will refer back to our witnesses who might like to make further comments or reply to queries that have been raised.

Deputy Willie O'Dea

I thank the witnesses for coming in and making three excellent presentations. We really appreciate it. Unfortunately, I must apologise in advance as I have to attend a meeting at 12 noon on the Social Welfare Bill, which will be debated later today, so I might not be around to hear their responses but I will be able to ascertain what they were.

There seems to be a few common themes running through all the presentations. Unfortunately, the witnesses are not telling us much that we did not already know or, at least, suspect. I would say all three groups are in agreement with 80%, or at least 70%, of the politicians in Leinster House that with respect to the new scheme the changes that have been made have not worked. In fact, they have achieved the reverse to what they were intended to achieve. In the budgetary announcement with respect to the Social Welfare Bill, we have seen an increase of €20 per week in the income disregard for the jobseeker's transitional payment or the one-parent family payment. That is a slight mitigation of a system that seems to be riddled with anomalies. Representatives from the Society of St. Vincent de Paul appeared before the committee and they pointed out all the anomalies. The witnesses have pointed them out again today and we keep pointing them out to the relevant authorities, but the situation simply continues as it is. I looked up the cost of the new measure in the budget and it will cost approximately €9 million. I tabled a question to the Minister a few months ago on what it would cost to move the age of the young child back to 12 and the answer I got is that will cost €9.9 million. The witnesses might comment on that. Is that the solution to the problem?

The other theme running through what the witnesses said is that a one size fits all approach does not work. We need a package of measures and the witnesses have been helpful in outlining what exactly is needed. The anomalies with respect to rent allowance, the barriers to education with the Student Universal Support Ireland, SUSI, grant and so on and the disgraceful situation whereby the father of the child is told he is no longer obliged to contribute continue to persist. I can assure the witnesses that we in this committee will do our very best to press the Government to correct these anomalies. However, I am disappointed that a more radical approach has not been taken in the budget and in the Social Welfare Bill because it seems we are just tinkering with a system that is basically achieving the exact opposite to what it was intended to achieve and which at the same time is riddled with anomalies and unfairness.

Deputy John Brady

I thank Dr. Millar and Dr. Crosse for coming in, as well as Ms Tinsley and the witnesses from SPARK. I agree with Deputy O'Dea. Unfortunately, there is not too much in what we heard that we do not know already, but the Millar report, if Dr. Millar does not mind me calling it that, although it was funded by the Department, raises some significant points. Has there been any formal response from the Department to the report which has been submitted? The Minister attended the committee last month and that coincided with the completion of the report. Some of his answers about the report were a little bit less than desirable. He seemed to indicate that the report went off on a completely different tangent from what the Department had intended. That is tough. These are the hard facts and the realities and I am very sorry for the Minister if the findings in the report are not what he wanted.

We have had the budget and we have seen minor changes introduced but, unfortunately, lone parents have not been given the political importance or significance they deserve. Everyone around the table has seen the impact of the changes that were implemented by Fine Gael and the Labour Party in 2012, but those who had the opportunity to negotiate on the budget and to make the required changes to it on foot of the Millar report did not put the focus on this area. Significant pressure was put on the Government to increase the old age pension, and there was a €5 increase, and there was much media play on that by some parties around this table but, unfortunately, that pressure was not applied by parties who had the power to effect change.

We know all the figures. They are contained in the presentations. A total of 22.1% of children in lone-parent families live in consistent poverty. It seems that is not reason enough for politicians, the Government or the Minister to take action. The Minister has been before the committee talking about measures to tackle poverty and he has spoken about measures and plans to tackle child poverty, yet the changes that were made in 2012 are compounding the poverty that exists. The submission from SPARK clearly shows that there is no incentive for lone parents to go back into the workforce. Indeed, by doing so, they are worse off. Talk is cheap. When people had an opportunity to introduce real changes, they abdicated their responsibilities.

I assume the report has been submitted to the Minister, to his office and to departmental officials. Has Dr. Millar had any official response in that regard? I have not seen any response from the Department to the findings in the report. I am interested to hear if Dr. Millar has heard back from the Department. The Millar report stated that international evidence suggests the importance of monitoring private companies and sanctions when it comes to job activation schemes. We know there is a huge impetus to drive people into job activation schemes. An important point was made in the report. Could Dr. Millar elaborate on it a little?

What kind of monitoring would Dr. Millar suggest? The audit of JobBridge, and I will not go into all of that now, identified lack of monitoring as a major failure. It is interesting to note that Dr. Millar identified that also.

Child care is one of the barriers facing parents across the State who wish to return to the workforce but none more so than lone parents. I would be interested to hear the views of Dr. Millar and Dr. Crosse on the single affordable child care scheme announced in the budget. Do they believe it will be beneficial or are changes needed?

The report that has been commissioned is important. There is much we can take from it but it does not raise any issues those of us around this table did not know already, although they are now contained in one document.

I have a couple of specific questions for the Barnardos representative. I have had various meetings with Barnardos since my election to Leinster House and I commend it on all the work it does on its pre-budget submissions. Barnardos has suggested a targeted increase in child benefit for children over the age of 12. We are aware of the significant impact lowering the age to seven years for lone parents has had on them. Ms Tinsley is suggesting a targeted increase in child benefit for children over the age of 12, but what are her views on the termination of child benefit for children who reach the age of 18? That has had a huge impact across the board. There is much talk about the back to school clothing and footwear allowance but, unfortunately, measures were not introduced to tackle the escalating costs of sending children back to school. I put a number of questions to the Minister on that but I do not believe he gets the point. He had the audacity to stand up in the Dáil and try to argue that the cost of sending children back to school has dropped because there has been a drop in the cost of a pair of shoes or a uniform. However, reports from the Irish League of Credit Unions and the Society of St. Vincent de Paul, as well as all the other analysis that has been carried out on the costs involved in sending children back to school, indicate that those costs have significantly increased. The reduction in child benefit had a serious impact. Does Ms Tinsley have a view on that? Has Barnardos given consideration to that issue?

Chairman

I ask the Deputy to be brief because a number of members are offering. I will come back to him if time allows but there are quite a number here today.

Deputy John Brady

I have a couple of questions for the SPARK witnesses. I will not deal with all the issues today. Given that maintenance is a huge issue, does SPARK have a proposed international child maintenance model that it has studied or recommended? With regard to the issue of maintenance, the letters sent out to the liable relatives have had an impact. Also, parents have been told that unless they seek maintenance, they will face financial sanctions. That is a huge issue because on the one hand, letters are being sent out to liable relatives informing them they have no obligation to pay maintenance but on the other hand, the parent looking after the child is told that unless he or she gets maintenance, this will directly impact on that parent.

I have one more question. Do the witnesses have figures on the number of lone parents in receipt of child maintenance? I have tried to get the figures because they would be helpful. I have other questions, which I might ask if there is time to do so later.

Chairman

If we have time at the end I will come back to the Deputy but I must accommodate other members. I call Deputy Joan Collins.

Deputy Joan Collins

I thank the witnesses for coming here. It feels a bit like déjà vu. We have invited the witnesses here before to explain how these cuts have impacted on lone parents and their children. From the meeting, I would prefer us to come out with something positive. For example, we could establish a small steering group that could delve into these matters and put pressure on the Department to deal with the anomalies, particularly on issues such as maintenance and the pressure of education.

I was talking to Ms Bayliss outside beforehand and we discussed the incident in the Intreo office in Ballyfermot where a lone parent went last Friday. She had been cut off. She was told she had to be in receipt of social welfare or in education. She was doing a master's degree. Were it not for the intervention of SPARK and Barnardos the woman would have had no income. The Intreo offices should be well informed about what people are entitled to and how to go about getting it, so people do not face these problems. To be left with no money for a week for travel and food is a terrible thing, despite knowing that one will receive a double payment the following week. I do not want to come back here in a year's time and still be trying to deal with the issues we can deal with. We must become a bigger voice in getting out there not just for the 22.1% of children in lone-parent families living in consistent poverty, but also the 7.9% of children in two-parent families living in poverty. We should be saying they need to be dealt with and asking how we can deal with it and get these people out of the situation they are in.

I have been watching a very good programme on BBC about Victorian Britain. It refers to the slums, Spitalfields and all those areas, and what they had to do to deal with the issue in health, education and housing. With the evidence base we have, we have to become a bigger voice. Clement Atlee and others came out with big voices. They dealt with the people living in the slums and they came out of those areas and tried to change things politically. As a committee, we must play some sort of role in it and working with the people most affected by it and the groups organising it. We can come back here and say there will be 30% poverty among lone parents next year or the year after, and it will happen. The fact that a person can be working but not benefit from it is crazy and it must change. People who come off the family income supplement or lone parent's benefit and return to the jobseeker's transitional payment will be €50 better off. It is a no-brainer to return to the JST. There is no choice. I would like something positive like that to come out of the meeting. I thank the witnesses for putting the issue on the agenda again for us and maybe we can try to get a handle on some of these issues that can be dealt with and the broader issues.

Chairman

Our work programme identifies three areas of interest we are investigating. I expect that in each of the areas the committee will make a report on its recommendations and findings, and lone parents is a specific issue. Our focus is not just on the issues but what our recommendations might be.

Deputy Joan Collins

And how to push it on and not just to accept a "No".

Chairman

This is the second in a series of meetings. We first heard from the Department and officials, and today we have these groups as witnesses. We may have another set of witnesses. It is the committee's intention to produce a report with recommendations based on these hearings. It will happen.

Deputy Joan Collins

A staggering 66% of homeless families are lone-parent families. Today's daft.ie report stated that rents are rising at double digit rates in 37 of the 54 markets analysed. The issue is becoming much broader and is national, not just confined to Dublin. The rent for an average three-bedroom home in Dublin 8 has risen to €1,800 per month. Nobody can deal with such increases. It is frustrating that ordinary citizens are paying landlords these huge amounts while we are putting pressure on the Government to assist lone parents or people who cannot afford these high rents with rent supplements and increases in VAT.

This is happening. We have to deal with this issue, which will have a big impact on everybody in the years ahead.

Senator Alice-Mary Higgins

I concur that we need to come through with strong, clear recommendations in this regard. I want to comment on one or two bigger matters and perhaps the witnesses might provide their thoughts in respect of them. I will then make a few specific proposals. As Deputy Joan Collins said, there is strong concern across the board among committee members. We should be moving towards a point of making very strong recommendations.

Dr. Millar spoke about the theoretical side. There is a fundamental theoretical problem at the very beginning and it is important that we identify it, as well as highlighting its many negative impacts. I raise this because I think it important for the Department of Social Protection in respect of lone parents, but also with regard to general practice. We must ensure we do not find ourselves making the same mistakes and asking the vulnerable in society to carry the cost of those mistakes.

There is the question of the recognition of care. It is interesting that the witnesses talk about recognising that care has a cost and requires time resources. For example, lone parents have less time resources in a very practical sense, as well as less capacity for financial resources because there is not the same level of potential income. We know that this translates very concretely because Irish wealth surveys have shown that lone parents not only have lower income,, they also tend to have less of a financial cushion, less ownership of property and less to fall back on. It is important that the witnesses identify both time and financial resources and it is crucial that we keep these in the picture with regard to the question of the recognition of care. There is also the question of choice. We must consider, in particular, what are the choices and options for people and whether there is an appropriate level of choice.

It is important to look at both of those questions because it comes down to a fundamental problem where we see people moved from one-parent family payment and into the live register system and onto jobseeker's transitional payment or jobseeker's allowance. Those fundamental questions should have been addressed at the very outset. I would appreciate the thoughts of the witnesses on this issue. While we are not going to move back in time, we need to ask what supports might be appropriate for people who are on one-parent family payment, for example, those with children aged one to seven, and what kind of supports and casework might allow them to access opportunities in a voluntary capacity and in a supported way. The problem with the transition is that we saw the move to conditionality and, because it was simply unworkable, the jobseeker's transitional payment was invented. Now we have this kind of limbo.

One of the issues with the move to the live register is that we have also seen the disappearance of lone parents in terms of tracking. Again, I would appreciate any information Dr. Millar might have in respect of best practice in other countries. How do we ensure the visibility of lone parents given the particular challenges they are facing and the particularly important care work they do within the system as it goes along? That is a core question. Right now, it is very unclear how, for example, a one-parent family where the child is over the age of 14 is given unique visibility in the system in the context of the unique challenges involved. I would like to hear examples of how that might be achieved.

I have a practical question for SPARK, Barnardos and others. If we were thinking ambitiously and if the jobseeker's transitional payment, which at least allows some level of visibility, was extended up to the age of 18 rather than having those with children aged 14 to 18 moved into the jobseeker's allowance system, what difference would this make and would it be a constructive gesture?

With regard to choice, there is the further question of support over sanction. One thing we saw in the original version of these proposals in the 2005 document and other documents was the idea that we should be looking to support lone parents to access full opportunities. However, the concept of the sanction has also crept into the mix. When we have spoken to the Department, we have had very robust debate but it believes the sanction sits very lightly in this situation and that it is not exercised heavily.

Will the witnesses be clear about what is the perception of sanction, as even the perception can have an impact, even in cases where it may be very rarely applied? What could be done to alleviate both the sanction and perception? What can be done to ensure that every person in an Intreo office feels very clear about the options he or she has? In that regard, we have heard the narrative that a job is the only way out of poverty. That has been very strongly pushed but we have seen that in many cases lone parents go from poverty to inward poverty. We know it is not always the case that a job is the only way out of poverty, and we also know that education is a way out. It was very interesting to see that research. One of the problems with education, when we discussed it at this committee, is that the Department feels it does not always lead to employment, although it may lead to an improvement in the well-being of an entire family. For example, this relates to the impact of a mother's educational level on children, as the witnesses mentioned.

I know there were specific proposals on education, particularly access to education. There is the issue of people being moved to the back to education allowance to access the SUSI grant and the impact on rent allowance, particularly given the jeopardy of homelessness. What proposals do the witnesses recommend for us to advocate to ensure that people can maintain rent allowance and still access the SUSI grant, which is so important?

The Society of St. Vincent de Paul made proposals relating to those who move from the jobseeker's transitional payment to family income supplement. One of the problems arises when a lone parent moves from the jobseeker's transitional payment to family income supplement, as if the lone parent reality becomes invisible when a child is between seven and 14. Is it feasible to ensure that somebody could access the jobseeker's transitional payment and the family income supplement simultaneously, or should another marker be put so that somebody who is working 20 hours per week and on family income supplement but not on the jobseeker's transitional payment would be visible in the system as facing particular caring responsibilities? This becomes very important in terms of accessing the back to education allowance. Currently, people are being encouraged to take a job of perhaps 20 or 22 hours but they become invisible in the system. As an educational opportunity comes up, such people fall off the list. How would that be bridged, as it would be really useful information?

There is a question of risk in all these cases, and this is again a fundamental philosophical problem, but more than 40,000 persons were moved from the one-parent family payment. There has been a patchwork of measures put in place to deal with individual cases but only 3,000 or 4,000 have become new workers accessing family income supplement. The risk has been carried by those without a cushion. As a group, we must look to all these intersecting measures and see how we take the risk out of the transitions between employment and education, social protection and employment for lone parents. We need to say that this is a group that cannot carry the risk, so how can we take that out?

The delegation mentioned tailored schemes in other countries that specifically target lone parents. How might we look at them and ensure they are getting quality options? It should not become a process of channelling into a narrow set of options. It was unfortunate that with the excellent work done with the Youth Guarantee in the Ballymun project, lone parents were not able to access much of the interesting and innovative schemes developed under the Youth Guarantee. Have the witnesses thoughts on what might be done if a further Youth Guarantee or similar schemes were developed?

I am almost finished but I have a couple of very practical questions.

Chairman

The Senator will have another chance at the end.

Senator Alice-Mary Higgins

We have spoken about maintenance and it must be tackled. There is the question of 100% or 50% rates with regard to absorption, versus reflecting the actual cost of having a child.

Ms Tinsley had a proposal regarding child benefit. Does she believe an increase in the qualified child payment for a child over 12 years old, which the Society of St. Vincent de Paul has mentioned, would be useful? I am interested that Ms Tinsley proposed an increase in child benefit for a child over 12 years as opposed to the qualified child payment for that child.

Chairman

Thank you, Senator. If there is time at the end of the meeting I will call you again.

Deputy Joe Carey

I thank the witnesses for their presentations. There was much overlap and common ground among them. I support what Deputy Collins said. If we are to be positive, the committee must work together to tackle the issues the witnesses have outlined forcefully and correctly. I welcome the Chairman's comments. The committee has had a number of engagements with lone parents, lone parents groups and representatives of the Department. We should compile a report based on what the witnesses have advocated, and I compliment them on the work they have done. I agree, Chairman, that the committee must put together a report on lone parents. We could agree on certain elements of it and present it to the Minister. The issue of lone parents was highlighted as a priority for the committee to examine. In an effort to be positive and constructive, the committee should compile a report that will try to address the issues the witnesses have highlighted.

Deputy Gino Kenny

My apologies for being late. I was stuck in traffic. I thank the witnesses for attending the meeting. I have a question for Louise Bayliss on the issue of maintenance. It is a mess, to say the least. Could a constitutional challenge be taken against the Government as a result? Obviously, legal advice would be required, but the situation appears to be quite bizarre. Representatives of the Department of Social Protection appeared before the committee last month and all of us were a little flummoxed by what they said. It appears as if they have been making this up as they have gone along since 2012.

I did not read all of Dr. Millar's report. I read the juicy bits, as they say, which are usually the last four pages. I read as much as possible and to synopsise it, the report states that the Government has failed lone parents. I do not know if I am correct on that but that is my interpretation. The report is very good and well written. It is on the side of lone parents, even though it was funded by the Government. My conclusion from the report is that lone parents have been failed since 2012. Will Dr. Millar comment on that? Will the report be taken up by the Government? The Government does not appear to be listening. The witnesses are preaching to the converted here. Most of us have said that policies must be reversed or changed, but the Government does not appear to be listening. It appears to have targeted certain people in society over the past five or six years. One section that it has attacked is lone parents, which I believe is a class and economical issue. It has deliberately gone after that section, particularly Deputy Joan Burton. She has much to answer for. She did some pretty horrible things to lone parents.

Deputy Maria Bailey

I thank the witnesses for attending the meeting this morning and for their informative presentations. There should be reference to where we have come from. The last few years have been immensely difficult for lone parents and most people in general, so perhaps we should refer to where we have come from since the economic crash and where we are now. I realise the money that has been announced in the budget for 2017 is not utopian and will not solve everything, but it is a substantial start.

It was mentioned that there was no help for people in mortgage distress. I presume the witnesses are aware of the supports available under the Abhaile mortgage arrears resolution scheme. I know people were not aware of this scheme but I hope in the coming months they will become more aware of it.

Deputy Joan Collins mentioned the increasing cost of rent. Everybody has probably seen the Daft report yesterday and today. Inevitably it comes back to supply. We have a massive deficit in our social housing stock, which goes back to the economic crash. Anybody who served on a local authority in the period from 2006 to 2010 will be aware the local authorities stopped building in the main because under Part V of the Planning and Development Act 2000, builders were allowed to offer for sale to the local authorities a percentage of the houses they built rather than have the local authorities engage in direct building. There is a massive deficit in housing stock and we must play catch-up in regard to social housing as well. I reference that because it all comes back to supply, whether it be in the private or the social sectors.

The 2017 budget will allow for the provision of an additional 52,800 school meals and roughly 35,000 breakfasts. I accept we must go further. In the context of where we were coming from to where we are now, we are going forward and we are trying to build on the progress made each year. The money was not in the coffers in the past.

There is a back to education allowance of €500 for people with children. While I acknowledge that €500 is not a huge amount, some 4,000 people will avail of the back to education allowance. I fully accept that €500 is a drop in the ocean when trying to feed children. I know how expensive a weekly shop is as I have two small children and children are expensive. It must be incredibly difficult for lone parents. I am not trying to say that I understand but am just referring to where we are coming from.

In regard to job activation, there was a reference to the transition from the one-parent family payment to the jobseeker's payment. The increase in the income disregard from €90 to €110, will cost €9 million and 17,500 people will benefit from this. It is only a start and we must go further. We are building on our past in order to make progress. If the witnesses were to highlight two or three issues which they wish the committee to zone in on, what would be their top-line issues?

Chairman

I thank Deputy Bailey. Before I revert to the witnesses for their response, let me make two or three points. I indicated the committee will do a report on child care. Should issues have arisen which the witnesses may not be able to answer now but would have further information to add, please feel free to submit responses by correspondence after the meeting. We do not expect the witnesses to be able to respond to everything today. For example, Senator Alice-Mary Higgins referred to international experiences in other countries that worked well, and if that information is not readily available, please let us know.

I thank the witnesses for their presentations and attendance today. I will not repeat the questions but I have one query. As the committee will make recommendations and so forth, it is important that we look at their impact, which should be continuously monitored. The Department appeared before the committee and when commenting on the reforms that will affect lone parents stated:

It will take several years before the full impact of the reforms can be assessed ... However, early indications show some positives outcomes. More than 3,000 lone parents became new FIS recipients by the end of 2015, indicating that these customers entered or increased their employment. Through the combination of earnings and FIS, these lone parents have been lifted out of poverty.

The departmental officials make the point that it will take several years to monitor and assess the full impact. They talk about the early indicators, but when I looked at the comments from the witnesses today and let me remind them of what was said:

Labour market activation of lone parents represents a major change in how social protection policy views lone parents. Such a change requires ongoing monitoring and evaluation to measure the impact of the policy on employment outcomes, employment supports, poverty levels and wellbeing to ensure that the policy aims of increasing paid employment and tackling poverty levels in lone parent families is achieved.

When I heard those comments, it struck me that the witnesses believe there should be a wider focus, rather than simply looking at the pure numbers showing that a certain cohort has moved from A to B. As this committee will make recommendations in this area, I would be interested in hearing how the witnesses would envisage that a process of monitoring and evaluation might be established. This will be a key issue. Changes are made in every budget, but those who set targets need to know from year to year that progress is being made along the way towards those targets. As it is clear that it will take several years to implement the overall policy in this respect, there is a need to look at how the incremental steps are measured, not just against one criterion but against a number of criteria. I would welcome any suggestions because the committee will have to make comments and suggestions in this area. I ask Ms Bayliss or Ms Dunne of SPARK, or perhaps both of them, to respond to what has been said.

Ms Louise Bayliss

I will go through some of the questions that were directed to us. A couple of members spoke about the issue of maintenance, which is very close to our hearts because it involves an income stream that could help to lift children out of poverty. In Ireland, the onus is entirely on the lone parent. This is completely out of sync with other countries. If the committee wishes, after this meeting I can forward to it details of our brief examination of the position in other countries. In some Scandinavian countries and in Australia, the lone parent gives details of the other parent to a central office, which makes an assessment on the basis of a set format. We believe the use of a set formula should be considered here as a means of taking the angst out of the issue. If lone parents were able to submit their details for these purposes, rather than having to spend five or ten minutes fighting in front of the District Court and thinking they have been unfairly treated, it would be a better way of assessing what should be paid. Governments in many countries make direct payments of increased sums to lone parents. In the event of non-payment of maintenance, they are able to make deductions at source, as the Government here does with the local property tax if it is not paid. We believe all of this should be considered as one of the ways of taking the onus off lone parents, who are already busy caring for their children and do not need to come back in every week to look for bench warrants that have not been executed, etc.

In addition to the approach I have just outlined, the excellent Australian system also employs a system of tiered-down maintenance that is not just based on a set formula. The more involved one is with one's child, the less maintenance one pays. We think that is really good from a child's point of view because it encourages shared parenting. We opposed the removal of the single parent tax credit in this country because it led to one parent being designated as the "primary carer" with the other parent being designated as the "secondary carer". It is not good for a child to have one of his or her parents referred to as a "secondary carer". We believe it involves a breaking of the familial ties for the sake of a small saving from the Government's point of view. This is not good for society. We are in favour of encouraging shared parenting, for example, by adopting the Australian system of maintenance, which acknowledges the difference between a more involved parent who takes the child two or three afternoons a week and a parent who has no interest in the child. As I have said, the onus in our system is on the lone parent to chase the maintenance.

Senator Higgins spoke about the existence of risk factors, which is a huge issue for lone parents. We have a constant fear of risks. We are afraid to do anything. Many lone parents stay on basic social welfare rates because there is no risk involved. Deputy Joan Collins referred to an incident we dealt with last week when a lone parent who is doing a postgraduate course had her money cut off. She was told at her local Intreo office that she is not allowed to study while receiving the jobseeker's transitional payment. The staff in the office were not aware that she is fully entitled to do so. We had to intervene by writing to them. We spent last Friday afternoon working to ensure her payment was reinstated. We are concerned about how many other lone parents do not know about their entitlements, perhaps because they do not have access to SPARK or similar organisations. The woman in this case was told at an Intreo office that as part of the activation measures, she needed to drop out of college. It seems unfair that to have her payments reinstated, she had to provide a letter saying she had deregistered from college. There is always an element of risk for lone parents, who are afraid to go back into education or do things like that because their payments can be cancelled and they can be left with no money.

There is no backup. This applies even more so when it comes to maintenance. There is an extraordinary risk with maintenance. We have tried to highlight this to the Department many times. If a lone parent gets a court order, regardless of whether it is enforced or paid, it is taken from the social welfare. This makes it extremely difficult for a lone parent. Let us suppose a lone parent is awarded €100 and it is not paid. That €100 per week comes off the rent supplement, even when a lone parent can prove that it has not been paid. In that case, the lone parent is told she must go back to court and chase it up. That really sends people around in circles. Sometimes people ask why lone parents do not go through the maintenance process. It is because the risk is all put on the lone parent and there is little reward. There is nothing extra if a lone parent gets rent supplement and only 50% extra if she is on other social welfare payments. There is a risk that the other parent does not pay and it is all on the lone parent to chase. The risk is too high. This element of risk really needs to be taken on board. This element of risk is what is stopping lone parents from undertaking jobs or education. There is a risk that it will all be pulled.

Deputy Brady asked about the prevalence of maintenance being paid. I spoke to Mr. Niall Egan from the Department of Social Protection. A total of 50% of lone parents on the one-parent family allowance get maintenance. The figure drops to 36% for those on jobseeker's transition payments. The only difference is in cases involving children aged from 12 years. That is why I spoke about the 28% drop once the letters go out. The rate goes from 50% to 36% according to the figures of the Department of Social Protection.

We are seeing an extraordinary increase in the number of lone parents telling us that when they are on jobseeker's transition arrangements the conditionality to get maintenance has become more and more strict. There is also a problem with rent supplement. When the rent reviews come back, many are told they have three or four days to get a maintenance summons or the rent will not be reviewed. Again, if a lone parent does not have an address for the other parent, she cannot get the maintenance summons. We are also concerned that there has been no consultation with Women's Aid, domestic abuse survivor groups and other networks to ensure that lone parents are not at risk when they have to get a summons. We do not like the idea that a lone parent who may be hiding from an ex-partner may have to get a summons with a full address and have her address and identity revealed. All these factors are risky for lone parents. Have I missed any questions?

Chairman

I will come back to Ms Bayliss if there are any.

Ms June Tinsley

I will pick up on a couple of points. One relates to the recognition of care, a point raised by Senator Higgins. This is prevalent and the issue has not been explored to the extent that it should have been. Earlier, I made a point about the value of quality parent-child relationships, because this is such a major predictor of the outcomes for a child. I do not think the social welfare system gives any recognition of this as a factor in the outcomes of the life of a child. We know this because the social welfare system has evolved over time and is very much a male breadwinner model.

There is such an expectation on lone parents to take up work without realising that they are full-time carers as well. As has been discussed already, the anomalies within the social welfare system are perpetuating the failure to recognise the value of care and the quality of the parent-child relationship.

Barnardos welcomes the investment this year in child care. We hope it is a step in the right direction. It is not a panacea and we need to recognise that there are clear anomalies and gaps within the proposals as they stand, especially around the issue of unregulated child minders. Moreover, the quality is varied. Even quality in centre-based care is varied. From the point of view of a child, access to quality early years care is going to be the key to improvement in future.

The other aspect that particularly affects lone parents is after-school care. This has not been explored much in Ireland. The approach in this fragmented sector is rather piecemeal. There are major cost and quality issues. I hope that the roll-out of any subsidised quality child care and after-school care system is comprehensive, bearing in mind all these aspects.

Reference has been made to the back to school clothing and footwear allowance. We were disappointed that nothing happened in budget 2017 in this regard. We have put forward proposals around the roll out of a genuinely free primary education system to help parents to tackle school costs.

None of that was advanced.

I agree totally with Deputy Brady about the cap at age 18 that is having a severe negative impact on low-income families. Many 18 year olds are doing their leaving certificate and parents tell us they do not even have the money for the exam fees because of the cuts to child benefit. It was a very short-sighted measure, given its implications for children's education and potential. Parents tell us that without child benefit continuing while a child is in full-time education, their ability to send their children to college is hampered. Children are perceptive and do not want to add that extra financial pressure to their parents and say they will drop out of school or will not go on to third level. That will perpetuate the cycle of disadvantage. We would welcome restoration of that to children who are over 18 and in full-time education.

In response to the question of whether we would opt for child benefit or qualified child increases, QCI, for those aged over 12, the proposal comes from the Vincentian Partnership for Social Justice. Its figures illustrate that teenagers are more expensive, they eat more and grow more, and that has an impact on household budgets. Barnardos would favour child benefit rather than a more targeted benefit on the grounds that all parents need assistance and that because it is a universal payment, there is no stigma. International evidence shows that universal income support helps reduce child poverty. It would be quite a short-sighted measure to target all benefits.

Barnardos certainly welcomed the extension of the school meals scheme to the non-DEIS schools in budget 2017 and would want to see it extended. It is crucial for us that the anomalies in the social welfare system are eradicated to widen the view that a job is the route out of poverty because access to education has such a crucial part to play. As Ms Bayliss and SPARK have illustrated, the current system hampers lone parents getting access to education. This is crucial in breaking the cycles of poverty. The lens for measuring the outcomes of policy and its effect on child poverty needs to be wider than household type and needs to include things that have a definitive impact on the children's lives, such as the mother's educational level.

Dr. Michelle Millar

In respect of monitoring, which the Chairman raised, it is very interesting that in other countries which introduced activation it was often done on a pilot and voluntary level. All new programmes were monitored and evaluated to consider the impact on employment services as well as on the lone parents who participated in the programmes to inform the policy. They were mindful of the fact that, as jobseekers, lone parents have unique barriers and characteristics that need to be attended to. One of the biggest concerns is that by virtue of the employment they go into, which is low paid and low skilled, it is very common for lone parents to cycle between benefits. They go into employment and back onto social protection. We need to monitor both how long it takes for their payments to be returned to them and their interaction with the Department of Social Protection.

One issue we raised in our report is that since 1994 there have been income disregards for lone parents. Before there was any conditionality or sanctions, some lone parents in receipt of the payment were in employment. There is 22 years worth of information on the employment paths for those lone parents who voluntarily went into employment.

There is a lot of information that could be garnered using the Department of Social Protection's jobseekers longitudinal data set. That goes back as far as 2004. It would inform us of what the journey into employment is like for lone parents, such as how many hours they work and how long they spend on the one-parent family payment before they move to FIS or enter into full-time employment and are no longer in need of income support. If the aim of the policy is to reduce poverty levels and improve the well-being of the children and the parents, it needs to be monitored. It relates to what Deputy Brady asked about private organisations being involved, which again are very much in need of monitoring. In the UK, for example, the private organisations have been seen to "cream and park", which means that the lone parents that are most job-ready are engaged with and those that are distant from the labour market are parked. Many of these firms are paid according to the number of social protection beneficiaries they get into employment.

As a policy researcher, the voices of the lone parents and their children that have been involved in this process since 2012 need to be heard on their journey towards either getting into employment or going onto jobseeker's allowance. There is a desperate need for research to be done in that area.

Dr. Rosemary Crosse

I will take Senator Higgins's question on the issue of sanctions and what we know about them. In Ireland, the reality is that we know very little. However, evidence from international research suggests that it is the most vulnerable who are sanctioned. The evidence suggests that the most vulnerable group to have sanctions imposed upon them are those who are the most distant from the labour market, who have the lowest levels of education, very little work experience, challenges in their everyday lives and who basically live a precarious kind of life. In many cases, they do not even know that sanctions are imposed. In terms of what is happening here in Ireland, we just do not know. We have no evidence as of yet. The recommendations of the research highlighted exactly what is needed in order to smooth the transitions over time, such as the income supports and employment supports, particularly the case workers. The case workers' support was found to be fundamental in smoothing transitions, particularly if they were empathetic and well aware of the challenges that lone parents face. I believe it is the package of supports that assists in the transitional process, with the case worker's support fundamental.

Chairman

I cut Deputy Brady short. Senator Higgins will have to wait her turn. I did say that I would afford them both an opportunity. However, I cut Deputy Brady short first of all. Does he have a couple of quick questions?

Deputy John Brady

I have a couple of quick questions for Dr. Millar. The report has obviously been published.

Dr. Michelle Millar

Apologies. I had meant to respond to the Deputy on that question.

Deputy John Brady

No problem. Has there been any official response from the Department or the Minister? I wanted to put that question first.

Dr. Michelle Millar

The report was e-mailed to the Department. We worked constantly with the Department throughout the tender. We e-mailed the report to the Department at the start of September when it was proofed and all ready to go. We had a response. We were dealing with individuals in the social inclusion unit in the Department.

Deputy John Brady

Has there not been an official report back from them? Was there not any feedback on the contents of the report?

Dr. Michelle Millar

No. We were thanked for our report.

Deputy John Brady

The Child and Family Research Centre was thanked. Okay.

Chairman

I apologise to Deputy Brady for interrupting. Before the report was concluded, as I understand, a draft was given to the Department for its input.

Is it fair to assume then that, by and large, the Department accepts the findings of that report?

Dr. Michelle Millar

The Chairman would have to take that up with the Department.

Chairman

If it did not accept them, it would have let you know-----

Dr. Michelle Millar

Yes, absolutely. We submitted a report to the Department and it asked us to make some changes to it. Mainly it was too large, and they thanked us for our work.

Senator Alice-Mary Higgins

I would add that this report presents an opportunity. We as a committee can encourage the Department to take it as an opportunity to consider a review or a revision of its policies.

I have a further question on a big picture change and imagining a big recommendation or change. In terms of access to appropriate employment, educational and other supports for one-parent family payment recipients, do the witnesses consider that, with such appropriate casework, the age category for the one-parent family allowance should be raised or that the age category for the jobseeker's transitional payment should be extended to 18? What are their thoughts on what those age categories should be to ensure we provide for voluntary access to employment and education? There is also the issue of those in receipt of family income supplement. Ms Bayliss or Dr. Millar might address how we can ensure we can track when people are, as was said, cycling in between in order that their journey and care responsibility is being followed. I did not thank the witnesses for attending when I spoke previously, so I do so now. Some extraordinary evidence-based work has been done by civil society in tracking the impact of these changes. I acknowledge that great work while we are calling for such tracking.

Chairman

I thank the Senator for that. I invite the witnesses to make their final comments on those questions.

Ms Louise Bayliss

I realise that I did not answer the Chairman's question, which was a very important one, on the 3,000 transitioning to the family income supplement. We heard it raised on the day the Department officials were here. While we acknowledge there may have been 3,000 new applicants for the family income supplement and that it may have led to an increase in income for them, that was not the case for the 17% of new family income supplement applicants who would have been in receipt of rent supplement because they would have lost every cent of that. That is the first point. Second, the family income supplement was always available to them, so it was not a new payment. They would have always been entitled to that payment but now they would get a lower rate, so it was not a new increase. Third, from our experience - again, we do not have evidence of this - many of the new recipients who moved from the one-parent family payment to the family income supplement had no choice but to do so because they were no longer entitled to the jobseeker's transitional payment. They could not keep their jobs at 16 or 17 hours and had to push for 19 hours. There was no financial benefit in that for many of them. They just worked the extra hour or two. They had no choice because to qualify for jobseeker's allowance they had to give up their job if they could not get the required 19 hours.

Chairman

Hence my question in that respect that this needs to be monitored and evaluated.

Ms Louise Bayliss

That needs to be monitored.

Chairman

I was trying to put the question in that context.

Ms Louise Bayliss

We need to see if there has been a financial improvement for the 3,000 applicants but we do not believe that has been the case for all of them, although it may the case for some of them.

Chairman

We cannot clearly say that and that is the weakness.

Ms Louise Bayliss

That is the point. This links in with Senator Higgins's point about the monitoring. There is an anomaly in the system in that when a child reaches the age of 14, a parent is no longer considered to be a lone parent. That discriminates against the parent of a 14 year old. In a two-parent family, a child has access to a parent to care for them but a 14 year old child of a lone parent is no longer entitled to any care from their parent. The care role is removed from the parent and they must work full time. That is an extremely dangerous situation. For the three months in the summer, 14 year olds and 15 year olds will be unmonitored while their parents work full time because of the lack of recognition of the care role of lone parents. We strongly suggest that jobseeker's transitional payment should continue up to when the child turns 18 years of age. As was said, if nothing else, it is a way of tracking that the child and the care role are being monitored. We would have welcomed it if some of the money that was cut from lone parents had been diverted into supports, but that did not happen.

An example is if the money that has been saved had been used so that, as has been said, a person who was due to lose the one-parent family allowance and suffer an 18% loss in income because his or her child was reaching seven or eight had the supports to get training for those seven years, for example, access to a case worker when the child turned three or affordable child care to allow the person to do the training in order that when the child reached seven or eight, that person was ready not just for a job but for a well-paid job. The care role must also be acknowledged.

We also welcome the suggestion regarding the jobseeker's transitional payment and family income supplement being payable. We note that a question was asked of the Department which said there would be very little incentive for a lone parent to do more hours if it was a conjoined payment, but the conjoined payment that exists for children under seven works and it works okay, so we do not understand why it would work differently in the seven to 14 age group. If the JST and FIS were both paid, the FIS would be a way of lifting lone parents out of poverty. The rent supplement would also need to be addressed.

Deputy Maria Bailey

What does Ms Bayliss think the effect will be when the housing assistance payment, HAP, is rolled out after Christmas because that will help with the anomaly between the rental allowance and the rent supplement and it is not a barrier to people going back into work? Does Ms Bayliss expect that will benefit many lone parents?

Ms Louise Bayliss

We believe if HAP is rolled out successfully, it will definitely benefit people. The rent supplement is a failed system. We are not fully sure that HAP will sort out the housing issue but it will allow lone parents to take up employment and to access education, so in that sense there would be some benefit.

Ms Samantha Dunne

There is a discriminatory factor in the rental market affecting those in receipt of social welfare payments. That is a problem across the board for parents trying to access rental leases. There is a bit of a gap there between two-person families who are single professionals and people who are on social welfare who cannot access those leases. The change to HAP is welcome because it will allow a person more room and to have extra income at the end of the week, but it will not be successful without dealing with the discriminatory factor and it will not benefit lone parents at all, from what we can see from members.

Ms Louise Bayliss

There is the anti-discrimination law which means landlords cannot advertise that those on rent allowance will not be considered, but they are getting around it. I have been looking through daft.ie and what is happening is landlords are stating professional references must be submitted, which means there are ways around it.

Deputy Maria Bailey

These measures are being addressed and there is a new rental strategy. The closing date for submissions on it was on Monday. At least it is another measure to lift the barrier and to allow people to get back into the workplace in that it does not put a time limit on their hours. From that point of view, HAP is very beneficial for people who want to work more, if they can and if they have the child care available to them, as it provides additional assistance.

Chairman

Do any other witnesses wish to add anything? No. I thank all the witnesses for attending today, and for their opening statements, which I said at the outset will be published, but more important, for their contributions throughout the meeting. If issues were raised that they would like the committee to be aware of, they should feel free to send correspondence to us. We will report on this issue but we have further work to do and it is timely that I can advise the witnesses in this regard.

The joint committee adjourned at 12.55 p.m. until 10 a.m. on Thursday, 17 November 2016.