Ms Louise Bayliss:

The cost of disability was very much a missed opportunity. We had assumed, from all the talk, that the €55 or some payment would go towards addressing the cost of disability, so it was really disappointing when that was not paid. Last year, some of the systemic failures of the social protection system were masked through the one-off payments of energy credits and the €400 living alone allowance. We know that poverty and deprivation would have risen if those payments had not been made. Now, we face a situation where the €10 core rate increase, though welcome and will help address things, does not keep pace with what is needed. We have said that, in our estimation through the minimum essential standard of living, MESL, research, a minimum of €11 was required just to restore purchasing power to 2020 levels. We know that energy and food costs are getting worse and people who have less disposable income are having to spend more on food and energy. The situation is really worrying. Therefore, we anticipate a lot more deprivation and poverty coming into place. I think the Committee on Budgetary Oversight has highlighted that as well.

It is similar for most people in terms of social protection, but in the case of people with disabilities, they have a consistent deprivation rate of 19%. They face income losses next year of between €1,200 and €1,400. That is worrying when they already face such deprivation and consistent poverty. Yes, it is a massive loss.

The child support payment is really welcome. It is targeted. The idea of getting €16 a week for children over 12 years is welcome. It is good to acknowledge the higher cost in terms of teenage children because the MESL research shows that only 64% of a teenager's needs are met through social protection. Social protection is not just the qualified child or the CSP. The calculation includes the medical card and the back to school clothing and footwear allowance. It includes everything. To think that only 64% of the needs of teenagers is met is good.

The two-tier child benefit seems good in that it would step away from cliff edges where people lose money. The problem with that is, if members read through the ESRI reports and the work and tax strategy paper, they highlight that while 40,000 children would be lifted out of poverty at a cost of around €772 million, 100,000 children would lose income. Those findings worry us because some of those children are in the lowest three income deciles. Until the Department of Social Protection can research who those children are, we would be nervous about making any change and putting such investment in if it negatively impacted on some of those children living in poverty.

I would also point out that the ESRI report does not take into account the higher cost of older children compared with young children. That means people would be getting the same money whether they have a ten-year-old, a 12-year-old or an 18-year-old. That needs to be taken into account.