Ms Caroline Fahey:

I have rearranged by theme the questions that were raised and I hope the answers to the members' questions will be covered in my response. I will start by responding to the questions on the one-parent family payment and the issues that arise in that respect. Senator Ardagh asked what we would prioritise or how we can prevent the changes that have happened with the one-parent family payment from having such a negative impact.

Mothers' educational attainment is certainly a strong predictor of how well families and children do. We suggest that the negative things which have come about as a result of the reform of the one-parent family payment, and have made it more difficult for lone parents to take up education and training, should be tackled at the outset. For example, there is a need to ensure that the maintenance grant is reasonable and to allow people to access it. People who are thinking about taking up education and training opportunities need to be assured that child care assistance will be available to them, that their income will enable them to make ends meet and that their housing entitlements will not be put at risk. Such matters are important.

Reference was made to the risks that people are being asked to take. We have noticed that people on low incomes can be very risk-averse because they do not have the background resources to make up the shortfall if things fall apart or do not work out. This is especially relevant in the case of education. Some people can be reluctant to send their children to third-level education because it is such a huge expense. It can be hard for them to overcome barriers like their lack of familiarity with third-level education and their fear that they will be much worse off if it does not work out. It is a big problem.

We have spoken to the Department about what is preventing the family income supplement and jobseeker's transition payment from being made together. It would not be that expensive to implement such a system, which would make a significant difference to lone parents in employment with children under the age of 14 who require child care. The Department is quite keen to ensure that nobody is getting two social welfare payments at the same time. There are also concerns that people might see large decreases in their incomes when their circumstances change and they are no longer parenting alone. We would always argue that people on low incomes who are parenting alone are special cases because they face numerous challenges. Many people are managing to work while rearing children on their own on low incomes. We are going to keep pushing this one even though certain arguments are being made against it. Some people would argue that a family in work on family income supplement is not technically experiencing poverty. This argument is based on the definitions of poverty, etc. We know that many families in work on low incomes are struggling.

During our discussions with lone parents, it has been suggested to us that the work of parenting itself is not recognised. This situation applies to lone parents only because couple households can often choose to have one parent staying at home. I accept that such households can have financial difficulties. The rules that allow married couples to transfer their tax credits and the standard rate band facilitate one parent in staying at home. If one is parenting alone, however, one is told one has to go out and work. It is a kind of contradiction. Many lone parents feel that the work they are doing in raising children by themselves was not recognised when certain reforms were made.

Two things have repeatedly come up in the Vincentian Partnership for Justice's research work on how much it costs to have a minimum essential standard of living. Housing and child care costs are driving up the high cost of being able to make ends meet. Social welfare payments certainly fall far below what is needed. In many cases, employment income is not enough because of the high costs I have mentioned. A job will not always help one to come out of poverty or to have a decent standard of living. This is a concern for us because employment is being promoted as the solution to child poverty and to poverty generally - as the only game in town. Certainly, there are much lower rates of poverty in households where people are in employment, but there is an awful lot of in-work poverty as well. Many people who are working are struggling because they qualify for nothing and they pay for everything. It is becoming a huge issue for people on low incomes to be able to afford to meet their housing costs. We need to tackle the high cost of housing and the lack of availability of proper social housing. When we speak about social housing, we are talking about housing provided by local authorities and approved housing bodies rather than housing provided through rent supplement and housing assistance payments, etc. We do not believe the latter form of social housing gives people secure tenure.

Tackling the cost of housing and child care would make a huge difference to the families we are assisting. While we welcomed the increase in rent supplement and housing assistance payments, we are finding that the homelessness issue and the problem of people not being able to afford housing is moving further out of Dublin. We have members in Wexford and Waterford who are talking about homeless families being accommodated in one bed and breakfast for five days of the week, being shipped out to another bed and breakfast for the weekend and then being shipped back to the original bed and breakfast for five days again. These difficult situations are not confined to Dublin. The problem is moving out now because people cannot afford Dublin at all.

The Society of St. Vincent de Paul is stepping into the breach by providing services that might previously have been provided through community welfare officers or through State services generally. When we speak to lone parents who are being assisted by the society, we are told that regardless of how good or how sensitive a charity's volunteers might be, having to go to a charity to ask for help is a very negative experience.

Having to tell a volunteer that there is not enough money for food for the week or to put a uniform on a child is extraordinarily difficult. We are stepping into the breach but it is not good for a person's dignity or self-respect. Even though we do a good job in many cases, it is not a positive thing.

We do not have an exact breakdown of our spend compared to what is spent under the supplementary welfare allowance scheme. However, we have noticed that while the Department of Social Protection and the Health Service Executive used to spend €80 million on supplementary welfare, the figure is approximately €30 million per year now. Our spend has gone up in the corresponding time. We help with largely the same problems, including basic things for people, for example, household furniture, things for children and so on. We believe there is a relationship between the decrease in the expenditure of those organisations and the increase in ours.

I will offer a comment on education. I did a piece on "The Pat Kenny Show" yesterday about crested uniforms. In primary school, a crested jumper costs €30 and a crested tracksuit is a further €30. A child might need two jumpers. This means €90 is gone out of the €100 back-to-school clothing and footwear allowance before a pair of runners, shoes or a winter coat has been bought. The back-to-school costs are exorbitant for many parents. There is a real need to engage with parents more to see how the costs could be reduced. We are looking for practical solutions to reduce these costs. Voluntary contributions put extraordinary pressure on families as well. We spend a little under €5 million per year on education. Approximately half of that goes towards third-level education costs, while 20% of the costs go on primary school and 20% on secondary school. The remainder is spent on early education and so on. In primary and secondary schools, voluntary contributions are the principal concern, followed by school books and then school uniforms. These are the costs families are struggling with and they come to us for help with them. We end up spending approximately €5 million per year on them.

The energy end of things has been well covered. We have a pilot oil stamp saving scheme. The lump sum payment for oil does not work for people of working age. The Department can argue that it could pay someone a lump sum but that if that person got a job or was no longer parenting alone, then he or she would no longer be eligible for the fuel allowance. We are looking for other solutions for people of working age. We have the oil savings stamp scheme running on a pilot basis. People can pay their fuel allowance into it and build up a lump sum. We need more innovative creative ways around some of the problems facing people. As well as that, some of our Society of St. Vincent de Paul local conferences work with fuel providers to negotiate a group discount. They can arrange for an oil delivery to four or five families at the one time. This overcomes the problem of having a minimum fill that some households cannot afford.

Reference was made to debt and financial inclusion in the credit unions scheme. It is a pity that not all credit unions are using it. One of the difficulties is that sometimes the credit unions in the most disadvantaged areas are not implementing it. One reason for this is that because so many of their clients would qualify for it, the relevant credit unions reckon they do not have the resources to provide the loans. It is a contradictory thing. The scheme is almost a victim of its own success. There has been extensive positive feedback about it and many people want to take out the loans but they are not always available, and that is a real shame.