Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I read the Society of St. Vincent de Paul's budget submission with great interest, as it includes a number of strong proposals. I was glad to see a focus on private rental accommodation and particularly those who are dependent on either rent allowance or the housing assistance payment, because there is huge vulnerability. A few issues were mentioned in that regard, including energy poverty. It is a key concern because persons living in private rental accommodation are dependent on State support for their private rental payments. They are clearly in an economically vulnerable position, as they are not necessarily in a position to minimise their energy bills, as the power and control rest with landlords. We need to ensure landlords bring buildings up to standard in order that the cost of heating them is not disproportionate. As we know, it will increase in parallel with the price of carbon. However, we must do it in a way that will ensure rental security. I have teased out this issue before and proposed amendments on it in relation to part IV tenants, for example. Homes being retrofitted for energy security purposes should not be regarded as being within the definition of refurbishment in the way we often see it being used as a rationale for the ending of secure or part IV tenancies. It is a genuine concern. I have spoken to many people who are afraid to raise concerns about the properties they are renting because they know that refurbishment would result in their losing their tenancies. In that sense, it is a trap. That is just one issue, in which I am interested because the submission identifies that danger and I wanted to tease it out a little more. We need to figure out how to build in that security while ensuring energy poverty does not become an issue. In yesterday's debates we heard that energy or fuel poverty was defined as fuel costs being 10% of one's income. However, in its submission the Society of St. Vincent de Paul notes that for private renters, in many cases, 40% of their income is spent in putting a roof over their heads.

I was also interested in the focus on lone parents and income disregards. Income disregards were substantially cut back in 2012 and have since been incrementally restored, although not increased. According to the Society of St. Vincent de Paul's measurements, how close are we to full restoration? Research into minimum essential standards of living highlights the huge costs associated with older teenagers. However, the jobseeker's transitional payment terminates when a child is 14 years old, while the one-parent family payment terminates when a child is seven. Between the ages of 14 and 18 years, lone parents effectively lose the benefits of the jobseeker's transitional payment, which means that they also lose the income disregard. As well as increasing income disregards, do the delegates think it is important to increase the level of the jobseeker's transitional payment to ensure the income disregard would continue until a child either reaches 18 years, at a minimum, or leaves school? That case is made elsewhere in the document.