Ms June Tinsley:

Deputy Troy asked about decisions made in budget 2013 regarding cuts to child income supports and how the savings that accrued through the cuts were not all ring-fenced for services. Obviously, we agree wholeheartedly with him in that we were extremely disappointed by the choice to have another flat-rate cut to child benefit without any form of compensation, particularly for low-income families. That, in addition to a significant slash to the back-to-school clothing and footwear allowance, will really send families over the edge. Already, families with whom Barnardos works absolutely dread getting the children ready to go to school in September. Now that the amounts allocated for the back-to-school clothing and footwear allowance are lower, families must make up the deficit even more.

The impact on children of the measures taken to date under the austerity programme should not be underestimated because parents are living from week to week. Frequently, they are in debt and dread certain times of the year, such as when children return to school and Christmas. Even seeing a party invitation in a schoolbag sends parents into a state of dread as they may not be able to afford to send their child to it.

Trying to strike a balance regarding child income supports and services is a difficult nut to crack but the emphasis should be on services while not diluting the importance of child income supports. What is required is strong political leadership to pursue that agenda. As Deputy Conway highlighted, it has been proven time and again that there is a significant return on investment if one invests in prevention and early intervention services. We advocate the avoidance of the short-sighted approach. Ultimately, children need supports to ensure they become fully fledged adults and can contribute to society. Targeting childhood is a short-sighted measure.

Regarding the three priorities I would advocate for tackling child poverty, the first is investment in the universal child care and after-school care services, which, according to the Scandinavian model, have proven time and again not only to be truly beneficial to the child and to cracking the nut of intergenerational poverty but also to the facilitation of parents taking up employment. The second is investment in education in order to enable children to remain in school. Time and again, access to education has been crucial. Unfortunately, supports in those areas have been cut in the recent past, to the detriment of children's ability to stay in school in some cases. The third priority is investment in health, which is crucial. I refer in particular to access to free general practitioner care. There are long waiting lists for children who require mental health services or speech and language therapy, for example. Since a year is a very long time in a child's life, a child is starting from a very bad place if he or she cannot obtain the supports he or she needs immediately. It is crucial to invest in these three areas in order to tackle child poverty.

With regard to children's services and our involvement in the child and family support agency, I will pass over to Ms Suzanne Connolly.