Dr. Tricia Keilthy:

On lone parents, four reports have been published since the most recent budget, the Indecon report and three reports from the ESRI. It is an issue that needs to be taken seriously. We acknowledge that some incremental changes were made in budget 2018 but we must look in particular at the losses incurred by lone parents who are working. Senator Higgins made sensible proposals on the jobseeker's transition payment. It is an important window that would allow lone parents to be supported to ensure that when they make the transition to employment, the employment is of a good quality and they can get the type of work that provides an adequate income.

The issue of lone parents also relates to the issue of decent work and precarious work. We support the Employment (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, which is a positive step forward and also made a submission to the Low Pay Commission. We advocate the introduction of a living wage and support the Vincentian Partnership's work on that.

The type of work that is available is a critical issue if we want to find a sustainable route out of poverty for lone parents. That also relates to ensuring access to education so that people can acquire good qualifications and have decent opportunities. It is important that the Departments of Education and Skills and Employment Affairs and Social Protection examine the types of supports available and ensure that poverty traps are not being created. Lone parents who want to take up education and training and are in receipt of rent allowance must decide whether to move back to the back to education allowance and keep their rent supplement in which case they do not receive the SUSI maintenance payment. The anomaly where people are given different supports depending on their tenure type is something must be addressed.

Evidence clearly shows the impact of the lower rate of payment for people aged under 26. It discriminates against younger people, pushes them into poverty and is linked to youth homelessness, which has increased significantly in recent years. We all know the difficulties people experience in securing HAP tenancies. Someone on the lower rate of social welfare who competes against someone on the higher rate will be at a loss. That is another issue that arises.

We fully agree on the points made on energy poverty. We had the very same experience during the cold weather. People were unsure about turning on heating because they did not know what costs they would incur later. A cold weather payment would be one way of giving people certainty that they have adequate resources and do not need to go without and suffer through cold weather. We have made a detailed submission to the Minister for Communications, Climate Action and Environment on retrofitting schemes on extending some of the warmth and well-being and the warmer homes schemes to the private rented sector. I fully agree with the point on the importance of energy efficiency in the public rented sector also. We have also made recommendations to the Minister for Housing, Planning and Local Government.

On adequacy, we need to move the conversation towards defining the social protection floor that no one must fall below. The Vincentian Partnership has done very detailed, comprehensive work to provide that benchmark. If social welfare rates are benchmarked against this standard, it puts a value on caring work, ensures that unemployed or older people are not faced with undue hardship, and it makes a very strong statement about the type of society that we want to have. It also provides an evidence-based approach to setting our social welfare rates and the benchmark we hope to see put in place.

I will speak briefly on the cost of a teenager, an issue on which Barnardos will have more information. We have asked for for the increase for the qualified child, IQC, to be increased. The IQC rose in last budget but it did not recognise the cost faced by families with older children. It would be a move towards a higher rate and recognising the additional costs. Social welfare supports meet more than 80% of a primary school child's needs but just over 50% of the needs of a secondary school child. An issue that comes up continually for our members is that child benefit stops once a child reaches 18 years, regardless of whether or not the child is in school. We must recognise that children start school later and are more likely to do transition year. When child benefit is withdrawn, it represents a major loss of income for families, especially low-income families, during a particularly expensive year when families must pay for mock examination fees, examination papers and so forth. That is another issue we have sought to have addressed.