Meaningful support services are needed if the new system is to work, writes Carl O'Brien
Despite the good intentions behind the system of welfare benefits for lone parents, it has been clear for some years now that the system simply isn't working.
The lone parents' allowance - now known as the one-parent family payment - was introduced to try to provide income support to lone parents and to encourage employment as an alternative to long-term dependency on the welfare system.
In reality, however, the payment has evolved into a poverty trap. It traps lone parents into part-time, low-paid employment in order to keep their earnings below the modest income disregard. And it snares many into a cycle of welfare dependency, with life on the breadline the only option for many who have poor levels of education and are faced with unaffordable childcare.
For example, research conducted by lone parents' group Open shows that a lone parent with one child can drop 42 per cent of their welfare income by moving to a 40-hour minimum wage job.
Furthermore, the cohabitation rule, which states that a lone parent should be raising a child without the support of a partner, conflicts with the Government policy of encouraging joint parenting.
The result is that, despite the fact that many lone parents on welfare are in employment, relatively small numbers are moving off the scheme because their earnings exceed the upper limit.
The consequences for lone parents and their families are grave. Latest official figures show that while poverty rates are going down among most groups, such as pensioners, they are actually going up among lone parents.
For example, Central Statistics Office figures show that 32.5 per cent of lone parent families were experiencing consistent poverty last year. This is up from 27 per cent in 2005.
The latest proposals from the Government seek to improve the current system. The model it proposes, which is based loosely on those in operation in the UK and Australia, removes the cohabitation rule and seeks to provide access to education, training and employment with the aid of one-to-one assistance.
The carrot of the approach is the proposal to increase the income disregard for lone parents - and other parents in low-income families - and increase access to affordable childcare or training. The stick is moving people on to unemployment benefit once their child reaches a certain age - seven or possibly eight - which would, in effect, oblige them to seek work.
However, if the scheme is to work, meaningful support services such as access to affordable childcare and after-school care, education and skills-based training need to be in place first.
This is easier said than done. For example, the Government's childcare investment programme, which seeks to create 50,000 childcare places over the coming years, was not drawn up with these planned reforms in mind. Will a new childcare investment package be needed?
There is also the question of whether the plans will allow lone parents to retain rent and medical supports once they begin to earn a modest income.
While these details are unclear at present, what is obvious is the need to properly think through the proposed changes before rushing into a new form of social assistance which could create a whole new series of poverty traps.