Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Social Welfare Payments

Dáil Éireann Debate, Tuesday - 22 March 2022

Tuesday, 22 March 2022

Ceisteanna (1)

Claire Kerrane

Ceist:

1. Deputy Claire Kerrane asked the Minister for Social Protection if her attention has been drawn to an issue (details supplied) in relation to the legislation regarding the liable relatives unit and the significant challenges it presents to lone parents; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [14850/22]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Freagraí ó Béal (6 píosaí cainte)

The Minister will be aware of the legislation that was debated on Second Stage in the House two weeks ago. I appreciate she was away at the time, but she will be aware that this legislation concerns her Department's liable relatives unit and how it treats the seeking of maintenance or a contribution from the non-custodial parent, when it comes to the one-parent family payment in comparison to the jobseeker's transitional payment. Is she aware of the challenges that currently presents?

I thank the Deputy for raising this issue. There is a legal responsibility on parents, whether married or unmarried, to maintain dependent children in accordance with their means. The legislation on liable relatives is not to be confused or conflated with the payment of maintenance. Under the liable relative provisions, the Department is not arranging maintenance but ensuring, where possible, that where a one-parent family payment is in place the other parent makes a financial contribution towards the cost to the State of providing that support.

This recoupment can be done in two ways. First, the liable relative can pay an amount to my Department directly. Alternatively, the liable relative can make the payment to the one-parent family payment recipient. Where this happens, it will be assessed as means and the level of the one-parent family payment may be adjusted as a result. The fact that the liable relative provisions do not extend to the jobseeker’s transitional payment has led some to suggest that the obligation on the non-resident parent to pay child maintenance ceases when the child turns seven and the other parent moves from the one-parent family payment to jobseeker’s transitional payment.

This is not the case and people are advised of this at the time. Furthermore the liability to maintain family provisions contained in social welfare legislation are separate to and do not negate or supersede parents' obligations under family law.

The Government established the child maintenance review group to review certain issues in respect of child maintenance. The group is chaired by former Circuit Court Judge Catherine Murphy and includes legal, policy and academic professionals as well as officials from the Departments of Social Protection and Justice. The group is examining the liable relative provisions under its terms of reference. I expect to receive its report before Easter and look forward to considering its conclusions and recommendations.

There is an issue where once the child turns seven years old, the contribution that is sometimes made towards the one-parent family payment ceases. There is a cliff edge when the youngest child turns seven years old and the parent moves onto the jobseeker's transitional payment. A letter is issued by the Department to the non-custodial parent telling them that the one-parent family payment has now ceased. In some cases, that means that people stop making the contribution. In order to receive jobseeker's transitional payment in the first place, a lone parent must prove that they have sought maintenance. In some instances, this forces lone parents into court. We know that this happens from the lone parent organisations SPARK and One Family, which have raised this issue many times. All I seek is that we would stop forcing lone parents into court by allowing the liable relatives unit to continue to seek that contribution when the lone parent moves on to jobseeker's transitional payment.

My understanding is that when a child reaches seven years old, the jobseeker's transition payment kicks into effect. Then you no longer have that liability to the State. Therefore the parent who is not living with the child and whose income has been taken as means, in that they should be supporting the child, that the liability ceases to the State at that point. Until the child reaches the age of seven years, the one-parent family payment is made to the parent who is looking after the children. The other parent, therefore, should pay the State out of his or her income towards the support of the child. Such parents can do it in two ways, either by paying it directly to the State or to the parent who is looking after the child, whose one-parent family payment is reduced accordingly in order that he or she still receives the same amount.

It is complicated and I accept that. We are carrying out a full review of all the issues around child family maintenance and we are waiting on that report.

My point is that liability should not end when the youngest child turns seven years old. The legislation would be to extend the liable relatives unit to seek that contribution beyond the child turning seven years old which in some cases is a cliff edge because in some cases, the non-custodial parent does not continue making that contribution. They certainly do not continue making it to the State because it lapses. I do not see an issue with extending the legislation and allowing the non-custodial parent to keep making that contribution because in some cases they are making it to the State.

It is really important that the maintenance review group was established and I look forward to its findings. I hope that it will put forward something we have advocated for years, namely, the establishment of a statutory child maintenance service that will calculate and collect to guarantee that child maintenance is paid in the first place. I hope that the review group will make this suggestion. We need to stop sending lone parents into court. Courthouses are not the place to decide maintenance. It should not happen. It is not the right system. I hope that this legislation will be rectified once the review group comes forward with its report.

There are two separate issues here, namely, that of the liable relatives and of maintenance. They are completely separate. The purpose of the liable relative provision is to ensure that the parent who is not looking after the children pays the State towards the cost of the one-parent family payment. It is not an additional income stream for the one-parent allowance recipient.

We did not oppose the Deputy's Bill. It was a timed amendment. I think that Deputy Kerrane and I are on the one page on this because I want to see something done about this and she does too. I want to keep an open mind until I get the report. Judge Catherine Murphy is carrying out a review. She asked for extra time and is due to report by Easter. I will get the report in a couple of weeks. I will look at its findings. We have spoken about this before and the issue of child maintenance needs to be reviewed. I want to see that the parent who is looking after the child gets all the support that he or she can. However, I also want the other parent to take on his or her responsibilities too. Such parents have a duty to do that and to look after the child even though they are not living in the house.

Barr
Roinn