Joint Committee on Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 25 Jan 2022

Child Poverty: Discussion (Resumed)

Chairman

In our second session, we resume our discussion on child poverty, which we commenced prior to Christmas. I welcome Ms Karen Kiernan, chief executive officer, and Ms Niamh Kelly, policy manager, One Family; Dr. Tricia Keilthy, head of social justice and policy, and Ms Rose McGowan, national president, Society of St. Vincent de Paul; and Ms Karin Jonsson, manager, Quarryvale Family Resource Centre, Clondalkin.

I will invite the witnesses to make their opening statements in the following order, Ms Kiernan, Dr. Keilthy and Ms Jonsson. Before doing so, I must I advise the witnesses of the following in relation to parliamentary privilege. As all the witnesses are appearing before the committee virtually, I need to point out there is uncertainty if parliamentary privilege will apply to their evidence from a location outside of the parliamentary precincts of Leinster House. Therefore, if they are directed by me to cease giving evidence on a particular matter, it is imperative that they comply with any such direction. The witnesses will have three minutes to make their opening statements, which I ask them to adhere to owing to time constraints. There will be questions and answers with members afterwards. Each member will have five minutes' speaking time, to include questions and answers.

I invite Ms Kiernan to make her opening statement.

Ms Karen Kiernan

I thank the Chairman and the committee for inviting One Family to this meeting. Prior to Christmas, I appeared before the committee wearing another hat. It is great to have the opportunity to address the committee as a representative of One Family.

We know that one-parent families are consistently over-represented in all measurements indicating poor outcomes and poorer well-being, such as poverty, deprivation, employment, homelessness, fuel poverty and poor living standards, all of which are particularly prescient at the moment. In recent years, there have been multiple independent and Government-commissioned research reports on one-parent families, all of which indicate the poorer outcomes that are experienced and that need to be addressed. These reports include recommendations from the Joint Committee on Social Protection in 2017, which is referenced in the current programme for Government commitments. The most recent data from EU survey on income and living conditions, EU-SILC, published last month, shows children in one-parent families are six times more likely to live in poverty than children in two parent families. We find this to be a shocking indictment on the policies that were supposed to be affecting and supporting one-parent families over the last decade.

The research mentioned not only shows the problems, it also offers a range of policy responses and solutions which, if implemented, could reduce child poverty in one-parent families. I chair the child poverty sub-committee of the Better Outcomes, Brighter Futures National Advisory Group on Children and Young People. Dr. Keilthy is also a member of that sub-committee. We support and reiterate the recommendations of the comprehensive report provided to the Minister last year by this group. We believe there should be a new national action plan on child poverty, with a specific target to reduce child poverty, as well as measures to improve outcomes for parents and children in one-parent families. Based on that, we have four main recommendations. The first is around income inadequacy, which is a core driver of poverty in one-parent families. The focus of Government’s response should be on social welfare income and the deep and persistent problems causes by the absence of a child-centred statutory child maintenance system. One Family recommends this be addressed by the establishment of such a service and also by benchmarking social welfare rates against the cost of a minimum essential standard of living.

The second recommendation is in regard to childcare. Parents in one-parent families have an additional burden when it comes to childcare responsibilities, but this is often overlooked by the State. For example, parents are required to move from one-parent family payment to jobseeker's transitional payment when their youngest child turns seven years old and again from jobseeker's transitional payment to jobseeker's allowance when that child turns 14. These are arbitrary measures. They do not relate to the developmental or care needs of the child or the circumstances of the family. In line with the EU child guarantee framework, we recommend free access to quality, accessible early years and school-age childcare for all one-parent families as part of a wider move to publicly-funded childcare.

The third recommendation is in regard to the creation of pathways to education and work. There are a number of barriers to education and quality employment that are, unfortunately, unique to one-parent families. These include an emphasis on activation rather than the education needs of lone parents, restrictions on accessing education support schemes based on housing supports and means-testing of grants. We recommend: tailoring employment and training supports; improving in-work income supports to make work pay, which is vital; supporting lone parents to take up and increase their working hours; and the introduction of a living wage. We strongly recommend that an education first approach should be taken to activating lone parents and eligibility for grants, specialist bridging programmes and other educational supports should be expanded.

The fourth recommendation relates to housing. We know that one-parent families are much more likely to experience homelessness, housing insecurity and poor quality housing than the rest of the population. People who are separated or divorced often face specific challenges relating to existing or prior ownership of the family home. One Family recommends a housing-first approach to increasing the output of built and acquired local authority and approved housing body social housing units to try to address the housing needs of one-parent families. We also need to make sure that both parents can access appropriate family homeless accommodation should they need it and improve access to support schemes for people who are separated or divorced.

I thank the committee members for their attention.

Chairman

I thank Ms Kiernan. I invite Dr. Keilthy to make her opening statement.

Dr. Tricia Keilthy

I thank the Chairman and the committee for the invitation to speak today on the important topic of child poverty, a core issue of concern for the Society of St. Vincent de Paul, SVP.

In 2021, our regional offices received just over 191,000 requests for help, almost 70% of which were requests from families with children. As pointed out by Ms Kiernan, with poverty rates six times greater than other family types, one-parent families continue to be the group most often helped by SVP. The high cost of living, lack of opportunity, precarious and low-paid work and underfunded public services limit the options for families in poverty and make it difficult for them to see a way out. Growing up in poverty means children are missing out on childhood and are being deprived of reaching their full potential. As well as the individual consequences of living in poverty, the failure to address poverty also brings significant societal costs. In recent research published by SVP and carried out by Dr. Michéal Collins of UCD, it is estimated that the State spends €4.5 billion per annum dealing with the consequences of poverty on people's lives. To put that in context, this is greater than the respective budgets of housing, justice, transport and agriculture.

We can solve child poverty, but we need all Departments to work together to address the structural issues that trap families in poverty. We echo calls for a new ambitious and comprehensive child poverty plan, with concrete actions across all Departments. Committing to benchmark social welfare to an adequate level would ensure children have their basic needs met and are not excluded from everyday childhood experiences. An adequate income would allow families to plan for the future and provide an anchor for parents to access training, education and good-quality jobs. A living wage and free childcare for low-income families would support parents to build a better life for their children.

With housing costs increasingly driving financial insecurity among low-income households, we need Housing for All to deliver on the promise to build more social and affordable housing so that every child can grow up in a secure and safe home. At the same time, families experiencing homelessness or living in insecure privately rented accommodation and worried about how they will keep a roof over their heads need timely and effective support. We need a child and family homelessness strategy with a strong emphasis on prevention. A full review of the operation of the housing assistance payment and the impact of unaffordable top-ups to meet market rents is also urgently required.

We are currently seeing the impact of rising energy costs, which are putting significant pressure on struggling households. This winter, SVP has seen a 24% increase in calls for help with utilities. As well as immediate support for families struggling to keep their homes warm, we need a just transition for children that ensures all can live in warm energy efficient homes regardless of tenure type, surrounded by safe green space to play and connected to their schools, friends and community through an affordable public transport system. Providing genuinely free primary and secondary education would mean the full participation in education for all children. At the moment, our underfunded education system is preventing too many children from reaching their potential and is placing families under significant financial pressure at back-to-school time. We also need targeted supports to help address educational disadvantage, which has been exacerbated by the Covid-19 pandemic.

Getting the policies right and putting resources behind them are critical but ending child poverty must be a top-line priority across government. We can look to New Zealand, which has shown leadership in this regard. It has made targets legally binding, established a child poverty unit in the Prime Minister's office to drive implementation from the top and amended its public finance Bill to ensure all budgetary decisions reduce poverty and promote well-being. This is the type of radical action we need if we are to make an end to child poverty a reality in Ireland.

Ms Karin Jonsson

I thank the committee for inviting me to this meeting. I will address the issue of child poverty from the perspective of food poverty.

Clondalkin Cares food bank aims to provide essential food to those who need it now, to support people to address the issues which lead to food poverty and to end food poverty. In the past two years, we have engaged with over 3,000 people, half of whom were aged under 18. We currently support about 500 people on a regular basis.

Food poverty is defined as "the inability to have an adequate and nutritious diet due to issues of affordability and accessibility". It is estimated that in 2018, 8% of the population experienced food poverty. With the Covid-19 pandemic, food poverty grew and some estimate it has more than doubled. Some 71% of those accessing our food bank say the pandemic is one reason they need us.

When people contact us we start by assuring them they will get food. It is not easy to ask for food. People feel shame and expect to be judged for not being able to provide for their family. They are scared and under an incredible amount of stress, so we reassure and listen. We also gather information. We record as many relevant statistics as possible. We need to understand what causes food poverty so we can work for change.

There will always be people who need food support for a while. This can be for a number of reasons but many of the reasons we see are systemic and not the result of an isolated incident. Half of the families state there is not enough money coming in to pay all the bills and buy enough food. Over one third of families are in debt. The "loan man", paying off catalogues and drug debts feature. Being in arrears with rent or electricity or taking a credit union loan to cover essentials has become the norm for some people and is sometimes only mentioned as an afterthought. Some 17% have increased costs for health reasons, such as needing to keep the heat on all the time, travelling costs to appointments and more expensive food. Some have to go private for assessment of needs or speech and language therapy as the waiting lists are endless.

A total of 14% are registered homeless. It is expensive to be homeless as many do not have access to adequate cooking and storage facilities. This can also be true for people living in direct provision and we believe there is a hidden number here of people who are struggling but not coming forward. Some 12% are waiting for a social welfare payment. Quite new here is that the pandemic is leading to families not receiving children’s allowance or a medical card and young adults living on their own not getting full social welfare payments for a long time.

People go hungry to make sure their children can eat. They switch on the heat for a while only when the children are at home. They choose between paying a bill or buying food. The constant stress of food poverty cannot be overestimated. It makes it near impossible to try to address other issues, like looking for a job or dealing with an addiction. What is especially sad is that many of the children whose parents or carers come to us are fully aware of their situation. They share their parents' worry, shame and stress. No child should ever have to experience this.

Chairman

I thank Ms Jonsson and all our speakers. I remind members as we go into questions and answers to, as much as possible, address their question to a specific person or, if it is for all three, to indicate that at the start.

Deputy Alan Dillon

I welcome the witnesses and thank them for their opening contributions on the important topic of child poverty. In this committee, we all strive to introduce targeted measures that have an impact on reducing child poverty.

I will first focus on early childhood care and education, referenced by One Family. My party, Fine Gael, has engaged extensively in this area through its policy lab and produced the Care of the Child document, which provides an enhanced route to early childhood care and education for pre-school aged children and help to prepare a child for starting primary school. I note that One Family recommends free access to quality, accessible early years and school-age childcare for one-parent households as part of a wider move to a publicly funded childcare system. I would be interested to hear more on this approach to childcare for single parents and what progress or engagement One Family has made in this area as one of its main targeted measures.

My second question relates to those in need of food supports. What Government response would the witnesses like to see implemented to combat parents' worry and, as Ms Jonsson referenced, the shame and stress of not knowing what food they may have to put on the table in the evenings? Do the school meals programme and breakfast clubs do enough for children living and dealing with food poverty and the struggle of having to go to school on an empty stomach.

Third, the Society of St. Vincent de Paul outlined an all-government approach to addressing structural issues that trap families in poverty. What would this new poverty plan contain? What actions would the witnesses like to see across Departments?

Chairman

We will start with Ms Kiernan, then Ms Jonsson and then Dr. Keilthy, because that seems to be the order of the questions.

Ms Karen Kiernan

I will speak briefly and hand over to my colleague, Ms Kelly. On early years, it is under recommendations from the EU that one-parent families should receive free or extremely low-cost access to childcare. We are not aware of that being in Government policy or being looked at, but it will be arising in the coming months. The chair of the national advisory council on Better Outcomes, Brighter Futures, Tanya Ward, sent the full child poverty paper to the Chair. It is an 84-page document and is comprehensive in terms of what we would like to see in the poverty plan. It also addresses food poverty.

School meals were mentioned and are critical. We need to see them throughout the country and not just in a handful of schools.

Ms Niamh Kelly

Our thinking behind free access to childcare for all one-parent families is in response to the huge barrier that lack of such access presents for accessing education and quality employment for families. The national childcare scheme provides free hours for families but it is tied, in large part, to a parent's participation in education and employment. We would like to see it follow the child so all children in one-parent families can access childcare, allowing parents to take up part-time work or education opportunities and focusing on the development of the children in these families. It is another pillar of the EU child guarantee that all one-parent families have access to free early and school-age childcare.

Currently, in the case of families whose children are approaching 14 years of age and seven years of age, payments change from the one-parent family payment to the jobseeker's transitional payment and then on to the jobseeker's allowance. What we see at these stages is that the care needs of those families do not change; they still need access to care for their children. Investment in school-aged childcare, historically in Ireland, has been low, and that is an area we would like to be addressed such that it will not just be about early years care and education but also about those children who go to school, particularly at those touch points where parents move from one payment to another and are activated back into employment.

Chairman

I thank Ms Kelly. Did Ms Jonsson wish to come in on the food question?

Ms Karin Jonsson

Regarding what families need now, one of our aims, and it is also part of the committee's work, is to end food poverty by examining the reasons for it and to end the policies that enable it. Ms Kiernan spoke about this in the context of single-parent households and their needs. The majority of families with children who access our services are single-parent households. I hope that work to ensure people do not live in poverty in general will not take too long.

In the meantime, for those of us who provide food and food banks, there should be more resources out there for us and they should be more easily accessible in order that we would not have to look so much towards fundraising, not quite knowing where all the food is going to come from. We have been part of the Fund for European Aid to the Most Deprived, FEAD, programme since July last year, which is an immense support but, even at that, it provides for about 70 families what I would say is only a very small weekly shopping basket, and we give that out once a month.

School meals are essential, as we have seen during the Covid-19 pandemic. We supported many local schools in distributing the food and there was a very good uptake on that. We also saw parents' worry, concern and fear when the summer was coming because they were not sure whether the food would continue. In some schools, meals are not given to all the children and the kind of food that is given out varies. Shame comes into that. If it is only there for the poor ones, that is, those of us who cannot manage, some parents will choose not to access it even if they could do with it. These breakfast clubs and lunches should be completely open to all those who want them, not for those who qualify, such that the option will be there for every child in the school.

Covid-19 has brought many new families into poverty, that is, those who do not live in delivering equality of opportunity in schools, DEIS, areas or families who had never experienced it previously. If children could have access to breakfast and lunch every day of the school week, that would be a great help.

Chairman

I thank Ms Jonsson. Did Dr. Keilthy wish to come in on the Society of St. Vincent de Paul question?

Dr. Tricia Keilthy

I might respond to the question on the all-of-government approach before handing over to Ms McGowan, who may want to add to the points on food poverty, an issue that arises frequently in our work in communities. On the all-of-government approach, the blueprint is there in the form of the Better Outcomes, Brighter Futures child poverty paper, which outlines exactly which areas require action to address child poverty, whether in education, housing, supports for parents or early intervention.

To facilitate the whole-of-government approach, a number of steps can be taken. From our point of view, it is critical to have a driving force behind tackling child poverty, which we foresee as a child poverty unit being established, co-located between the Departments of Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth and Social Protection, that would be tasked with developing child poverty plans, where each Department would have specific actions and targets it must deliver on. A key part of that would relate to ensuring our budgetary process was attuned to the need to reduce child poverty. That would involve ensuring all budgetary decisions have been properly poverty-proofed, meaning that, if a proposal were put forward, an assessment would be carried out to see what impact that would have on poverty, while ensuring that all decisions that are made will effectively reduce that.

It is about the collective impact of policy decisions, given that sometimes, a decision by, say, the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage may improve circumstances for a household but that may be offset by a change in another policy area by another Department. For example, if social welfare payments increase, this may be negated if differential rent does not increase or if there is not a change there and the person’s income is taken in rent. That is about Departments coming together, discussing the collective impact of what they are doing and asking how they can ensure the budget is addressing child poverty.

Ms McGowan might speak to the issue of food poverty.

Ms Rose McGowan

I will not reiterate what the representatives of the two other organisations said because we are all on the same page. A couple of issues, both for me personally and for the society, arise. It is difficult to come to the Society of St. Vincent de Paul for help, but imagine that in 2021, people in Ireland were phoning us looking for food. It is horrendous for us in Ireland to say people are short of food. It reminds me of Famine times.

I have been in the society for a long time, since school, and I can see the different kinds of help people are now looking for. When I joined, we might have been bringing shopping to houses where people were not able to budget, and we would try to show them that, if they bought a week's shopping, it would be a better use of their money. Now, people are queuing outside food banks for food when they are short. The pandemic has definitely exacerbated circumstances. Children were at home from school, and when that is the case, as anyone who has children will know, the fridge is constantly being opened and food is being eaten.

A big issue for us relates to dignity. It is difficult for people to ask for help where they do not have enough food. People may have to get it through the FEAD programme, which is of excellent quality but do people really want to have to collect food from a food bank or to be hoping the school would know they are in need? Hundreds of people come to our food banks and we are quite happy to operate them with our volunteers. Before Covid, we delivered food in order that people would not have to queue. During the first lockdown, because we are in every community, other community organisations worked with us, such as the Garda, which was excellent, and GAA clubs. We are confidential, however, so we need to be really careful in how we deal with people. The quality of the food is excellent, but one person may not eat rice, for example, and another may not eat pasta. People are entitled to choice but we hand them bags or boxes of food where there is no choice. That, to me, is not dignified.

I fully agree all schools should be in the school meals programme, not just those in DEIS areas. In fact, because of Covid, a family might be better off living in a DEIS area because they will get the breakfast club or lunch in school. We have had more and more people come to us who have been working and, therefore, they would not be living in a DEIS area. We have had people with mortgages, car loans and energy bills. There are lots of people who have been working. As one family said, a single parent, whether a mum or a dad, must try to juggle everything. Food poverty is a very big issue. As a society, we will have to address that.

Deputy Mark Ward

I thank the witnesses for taking the time to come before the committee today and share their experiences of food and child poverty. I welcome Ms Jonsson, who I know very well. She operates a food bank in the heart of my area in Quarryvale. It has been a beacon of hope to many people. Unfortunately, I have spent a lot of time with her and her organisation over the past couple of years dealing with people who needed to access the food bank in Quarryvale under the auspices of the Quarryvale Family Resource Centre.

It is a highly disadvantaged area. There are many levels of poverty in the area. It was the same when I was growing up in the 1980s. I echo what Ms Jonsson said about the school meals programme. It should be open to everybody. When I was younger, I accessed the school meals programme. Everybody seemed to be poor in the 1980s, and things do not seem to have become better in some parts of the area.

I also echo what was said by another witness about DEIS areas. The DEIS areas within my locality have some access to food, but some schools are not categorised as DEIS despite having some of the highest level of poverty in the area. I will not mention them because I do not want to stigmatise them further. The approach to the DEIS designation needs to be examined.

Can Ms Jonsson elaborate on her comment in her opening statement regarding the number of parents accessing the food bank because they have to find a private operator to provide their children's healthcare? Parents are desperate to find care for their children, such as occupational therapy, speech and language therapy and child psychology, but because the waiting lists in the public health system are so long it is having a detrimental impact on children's development. Can she elaborate on her experience of that?

Ms Karin Jonsson

Many parents come to us because they have decided that they need to go private because of a waiting list. Those waiting lists include an assessment of needs, speech and language therapy or play therapy. Sometimes children have experienced highly traumatic situations and are not coping, but there is nothing for them that is free or low cost. Many organisations provide different kinds of support in some of these areas, and we are one of them, but our waiting lists are long.

Parents take a decision to pay privately for as long as they can and then come to us. They are almost sorry for what they have done on one level. They cannot afford food, but their children need an assessment or support almost as much as they need food in order to be able to manage, develop, get something out of going to school and not be traumatised or depressed. There are several examples of that. People wait for a very long time. There are examples of adults doing that, but we are focusing especially on children.

Waiting lists are long everywhere. To some extent, in our area they are, at times, especially long. I know the Covid-19 pandemic has had an impact on people working in different service providers by the HSE and contact tracing, etc., is also very important. However, when one sees these children and parents one wishes that there could be more resources put into shortening waiting lists.

Children are sometimes put on a waiting list, but they are there for so long that they are too young for a service and are instead moved to the bottom of the next waiting lists, and nothing seems to happen. That perpetuates a situation of genuine struggle in these families. The children do not start off with the same opportunities or on the same platform as others. Even though food and paying bills is very important, sometimes parents take this decision for the well-being of their child.

Deputy Mark Ward

I again thank Ms Jonsson for all of the work she is doing in our community. I really appreciate it.

Deputy Holly Cairns

It was hard to listen to all of the opening statements without feeling sickened or furious. Some 90,000 children in Ireland live inconsistent parity. The committee has discussed this issue for several weeks, but it has been a consistent issue for generations. To a certain extent, we know what many of the issues and solutions are, and we have done for some time. We have to face up to the failure of the State to address the systematic issues that permit that kind of child poverty to continue.

I thank the witnesses for coming before the committee today and sharing their valuable insights with us. I have a few questions for the St. Vincent de Paul. In its recent pre-budget submission, it highlighted in-work poverty among one-parent families and recommended the removal of the cliff edge for working lone parents by extending the cut-off for jobseeker's transition payments until the youngest child reaches the end of second level education. Could the witnesses describe the difference a measure like that would make?

That document stressed the importance of closing the gap between social welfare rates and the real costs facing households. Could the witnesses elaborate on the importance of benchmarking social welfare payments to an adequate income? The St. Vincent de Paul discussed the role of income inadequacy of a core driver of poverty in one-parent families. It highlighted the importance of benchmarking social welfare rates against the minimum essential standard cost of living. If the witnesses could elaborate on that for the committee, it would be very helpful.

The St. Vincent de Paul provides particular insight into the importance of tailoring employment and training supports in enabling lone parents to increase their working hours and gives example of what measures it has in mind. On that kind of furious and sickened note, do any of the other witnesses want to comment?

Even with all of those changes and the different things we could do a terms of budgets and social welfare payments, without State provision of childcare, is it possible to reduce the gap in terms of one-parent families being six times more likely to experience poverty to that extent? Without childcare provision for one-parent families that is accessible and free will we ever get rid of that? My mother was a single parent and went out to milk the cows every day. It is an almost impossible task to go to work when people have children and cannot afford childcare. Without childcare provision, will all of the other measures bring one-parent families to the same level as two-parent families?

Chairman

I thank the Deputies.

Ms Niamh Kelly

On the question of childcare, I agree with the Deputy that without childcare, it is very difficult to see how we can address things like ensuring access to employment and education. The same extends to a variety of other areas. For example, we know that one-parent families are more likely to be in insecure and poor quality housing. Without a secure place to live, it is very difficult for families to engage in things like education or get access to employment because they are so concerned about keeping a roof over their heads.

The Deputy mentioned benchmarking, which is something we see as crucial because without a standard of living that meets people's needs they cannot survive or get by.

They cannot think about anything outside their immediate crisis circumstances. It is imperative that the payments made to families through the Department of Social Protection are enough to meet their needs.

We see a good example in this regard from the Vincentian Partnership for Social Justice research over the last number of years. Social welfare payments to older households, through measures taken at Government level, have been sufficient to meet their needs and over the last number of years those households have fared adequately - I do not want to say well - in terms of social protection. We see at the opposite end with one-parent families that where families are on working family payment, for example, they are faring particularly badly. Under the most recent budget, they were seen to come out slightly below the cost of living increases. The measures are there. The benchmarking of social welfare is something that can be included in a targeted approach to families, but it needs the other service pieces. It requires things such as childcare, housing and access to employment and education to be addressed.

In terms of education, there are a number of good schemes available. Often parents are not made aware of them or they are not given a pathway to enter the schemes for education or even employment. We hear time and again from parents who say they are being activated into a particular role that does not suit their skills set or that they would like to get back into education to upskill. To address child poverty families need to be earning a decent wage whereby they can pay for their housing costs and all the costs associated with raising children. These families want to provide for themselves. They want to be able to get ahead and to have enough education to build a life for themselves, rather than just constantly relying on social protection. A key part would be addressing a number of anomalies in the system.

There are a number of issues with regard to education. For example, the Student Universal Support Ireland, SUSI, grant is not available for part-time courses. That is a real barrier for one-parent families, particularly when their childcare needs are taken into account. There are other anomalies. If somebody is on jobseeker's transitional payment, JST, or one-parent family payment and is in receipt of rent supplement, the person is automatically moved back to the training and education allowance, which precludes the person from getting a SUSI maintenance grant. There was a good example last year. The Minister for Social Protection implemented a law called Catherine's law which stopped the means testing of PhD stipends for people in receipt of disability allowance, yet the means testing still exists for people on one-parent family payment and jobseeker's transitional payment.

These are some examples of technical issues in the system that could be ironed out and benefit families, but these small technical changes have to be underpinned by a widespread benchmarking of social protection against a minimum essential standard of living. The way to achieve that refers back to what Ms Kiernan said about the need for a national child poverty strategy. All the measures we are discussing today are of value and it is worthwhile looking at implementing them, but without that overarching strategy there is no coherent approach and no protection for children against shocks to the system that could come. For example, inflation is a big issue at present. What we need is a concerted effort from the Government that is long-term, sustainable and looks at all these different areas and brings them together.

I hope that answers the Deputy's question.

Dr. Tricia Keilthy

I thank Deputy Cairns for her question. As regards the cliff edge, I will add to what Ms Kelly outlined. In the case of the jobseeker's transitional payment, once the youngest child reaches the age of 14 years, a recipient must either switch to the working family payment or move to jobseeker's allowance. That means that a lone parent who is working full-time will lose €53 per week simply because the youngest child has turned 14 years old. The parent cannot take up any more hours because he or she is already working full-time, so there is no way for the parent to increase his or her income. The parent is left with this loss of income at a time when he or she has a teenager. Raising teenagers is more expensive in terms of the costs to households. They are still in school and the parent still has all the care and responsibility. Extending it until the end of secondary school would mean that the cliff edge at that point is removed. The children are then over the age of 18 years and perhaps going into college. They can then move onto other payments at that point, where there is an opportunity maybe to engage with training and there is still income support.

Lone parents need the social protection system to recognise their additional caring responsibilities, and they need to be treated differently because of that. That is very important. This is a legacy of the drastic cuts and changes to the one-parent family payment that took place from 2014 onwards. Many of them have been rolled back and we have seen improvements in the living standards of some lone parents, but there are still critical and entrenched issues in terms of how the social protection system and in-work supports are designed for lone parents. It is a very complex system, so streamlining it would be very effective in supporting lone parents throughout their children's lives.

To add to what Ms Kelly said about benchmarking, it is about using evidence to drive how our social welfare system is set. At present, it is arbitrary and totally inadequate. There is still a gap of €82 between a social welcome income for a lone parent with two children and the cost of a minimum essential standard of living. That is why we have issues related to food poverty and that is why families are cutting back and going into debt. Having a system that is adequately benchmarked and that provides a standard of living for everyone in society, a standard below which nobody is expected to live, would be a progressive and important step in tackling child poverty. It is not cheap to do and it would require changes over a number of budgets. However, as shown in the research we highlighted regarding the cost of poverty to the State every year, it is significantly less than that so it is definitely money well spent in terms of preventing the damaging impacts of poverty on people's lives.

Childcare is fundamentally critical to ensuring that families can get out of poverty and that they have options and choices. At the same time, we must ensure that people who cannot work because they are caring for children with additional needs or a disability have an income that they can live on with dignity. That is why recognising the cost of disability and the full implementation of the recently published Indecon report are also critical to ensure those extra costs are supported through our social welfare system.

Ms Karin Jonsson

I agree with the previous speakers. To add to that, childcare plays a positive and important role in prevention and early intervention with children and families in any situation that might relate to child poverty or issues leading to child poverty. Sometimes childcare is the only service that a family accesses and that can be the way in towards addressing all the different issues and gaining training, education and employment. Childcare places play a very important role in our society and should be available to everybody.

Senator Lynn Ruane

I apologise that I missed my name when it was called earlier. The sound went on me and by the time I got it back it was too late. Many of the questions I had intended to ask have been covered. However, I am always confused by what does not seem to come up very often, especially from a poverty perspective and also when we discuss social welfare.

At some point over the past decade or so, the children's allowance was linked to a child attending school. It is as though we have automatically accepted this is the case, when it is supposed to be a universal payment. It was never about education. Some of the poorest women in some of the most poorly resourced communities often experience children dropping out of school young, at 15, 16 or 17 years of age, before they have completed the leaving certificate. We seem to have accepted the policy that if people cannot get the children's allowance form signed by a school to state the child is in school the children's allowance is stopped. This policy impacts some of the poorest families and communities that are already struggling to keep their children engaged in the education system. Perhaps One Family or the Society of St. Vincent De Paul have experience of this. I would love to know the views of the witnesses on this and why it has not come up as a contentious point. It has worked its way into our policy on how we pay children's allowance. A household with high educational attainment receives a universal payment with much less of a risk of the children dropping out of school or having difficulties in school. They are probably from professional backgrounds. We have this universal payment that becomes contingent on your child remaining in the education system. Obviously there is a desire to keep children in the education system. Mothers never want children to leave education but it is not always possible to keep them in it and somehow, we have allowed the children's allowance to be attached to it. Do the witnesses see this as an issue with regard to the discussion on child poverty? I would love to know the witnesses' views on this point.

Ms Niamh Kelly

As Dr. Keilthy has outlined, we support the extension of the jobseeker's transitional payment until-----

Senator Lynn Ruane

No-----

Ms Niamh Kelly

I understand the question but it is a similar point. We support that it is paid until a child reaches the age of 18 and we believe the same should be true for the child benefit payment. It is a protected payment. It is not means tested or taxable. It should be for the course of a childhood rather than linked to the educational attainment of the young person. It echoes the changes to the one-parent family payment, with fairly arbitrary age requirements put on payments that actually do not reflect the reality for families. Often they disproportionately affect the lowest-income families. We definitely support what the Senator is saying in that it should be available to all children under the age of 18. It is not something on which we have been campaigning. It does not come up a lot for us in our services but it is certainly something we would support.

Dr. Tricia Keilthy

I thank Senator Ruane for the question. It is a good point. It is not something that comes up frequently in our services. It is not something on which we have focused. It does complicate things when a letter has to be signed. There were issues over the summer when parents were not able to get the letter signed and there was a loss of child benefit. This is a huge loss for families on low incomes. An issue that is raised consistently with regard to child benefit is the loss of child benefit once a child turns 18, even if that child is still in school. Now that we have transition year and children begin school at six, they are much more likely to be 18 - definitely in sixth year and perhaps in fifth year. The loss of child benefit at that time is massive for families. We have seen it contribute to early school leaving. Child benefit should be payable for all children until the end of secondary school. The cut-off at the age of 18 has an impact on families. It is an issue that is raised with us quite frequently. In our prebudget submission, we called for child benefit to be available until children finish secondary schools. This is what we have seen in our services and supports.

Senator Lynn Ruane

Perhaps it is this concept that all of a sudden meant it was attached to asking schools to sign the form. When I went to school, I never had to bring a form to the school to prove I was in school so my mother could collect the children's allowance. It is like the decision was made at a policy level. It is something new in the past 17 years. I am trying to think of the age of my daughter and when it started and stopped throughout her lifetime. I agree the payment should not stop at the age of 18 particularly when children start school later. In one sense we are arguing that it should be to the end of second level. This is then in the psyche of policymakers, who attach access to it to being in the education system. To some extent they need to be uncoupled from a policy perspective in order that we do not disenfranchise women. It probably is not raised because people have just accepted that they no longer receive the children's allowance because the child does not go to school. They have also accepted it as a policy intention without there ever having being, in my understanding or memory, a conversation about it. Everyone has just accepted it. It is something we need to start bringing to the fore again for the women in my community who no longer receive children's allowance because their children are having such difficulty attending school. If anyone needs to continue to have support, it is families in this situation. It is about naming it as an issue. For politicians and advocates from a policy perspective, it would be a good time to look at where it came from and why it happened. If it is just a ministerial order, it should be undone.

Deputy Jennifer Murnane O'Connor

I thank everyone who has spoken today. It is very important that we highlight issues with child poverty. It is very hard to think of children in poverty. In Carlow I have been very involved with a group of people and we set up our own food bank. We call it St. Clare's Hospitality Kitchen. We provide up to 80 meals a day. During Covid we had to buy in meals. We also give out a lot of food parcels. I have seen at first hand families who are working and paying their bills and who find it very hard to survive at the end of the week when they have absolutely nothing left. They look for a food parcel. We have to be very careful because there are situations where families are working but they end up with nothing left particularly when they pay their bills. We are always mindful of this.

I have a question for the Society of St. Vincent de Paul. According to the opening statement, in 2021 its regional office received more than 191 requests for help and almost 70% of these requests were from families with children. Do the witnesses believe this is an accurate figure? I believe from working in the community that there are families with children who need support but who do not look for it. Do the witnesses feel this is an issue? Is it something they often come across?

Another area I want to speak about is child support. Domestic violence has been very much part of the pandemic and the issue has been highlighted in recent weeks. It is an issue that we need to highlight. There should be more supports for children in this situation. We need to put supports in place, whether through schools or families. There should be supports for children affected by it. Are there enough counselling services? Do children get support? Does the system miss children who need these supports but we are not aware of them?

I want to raise another issue, which I have discussed with the Minister. I have been calling for action on it for the past eight months or a year. I know of families who left schools because they do not qualify for DEIS status.

There were no hot meals programmes or breakfast clubs. Some families are now sending their children to schools where they can access hot meals. We are living in a type of society where we must ensure, and I have been calling for this to happen, that all schools have these programmes, whether they are categorised as DEIS or not. We have been waiting months for the completion of the Minister's review of DEIS status. Schools have applied to the Minister for DEIS status because they are in disadvantaged areas. There has been no report on this subject yet, but I will keep working on it and continue to ask the Minister about it.

All schools, no matter what areas they are in, must now consider providing hot meals, because some families cannot afford hot meals themselves if they are paying a bill. The parents may be making sacrifices themselves, as was said, but if their children were in a school with a hot meals or breakfast programme, then they would at least know they were being fed. Everybody must be able to avail of these programmes. It is important that no children should feel that they are the exception for getting food when others are not. We must be mindful of that aspect.

Turning to the subject of lone parents, I have a major issue with local authorities not building two-bedroom houses. Lone parents on the local authority housing lists come to me, and these are people paying their rent with the housing assistance payment, HAP, and doing their best. They are being told, however, that no two-bedroom houses are available. We must get all the different agencies working together and undertake joined-up thinking. In addition, however, we must ensure that we are building houses, because we do not want to see children living in flats or rented accommodation in the context of HAP. If a house is sold, people can become homeless within three months. Therefore, one-parent families must be given more security. We must work on this issue in conjunction with other areas and bring about joined-up thinking in this regard.

We all know it has been hard during the pandemic. The only good thing the Covid-19 pandemic has done is to highlight the failings in our system, and especially those things that have not been highlighted enough previously. It is sad, in 2022, to have food banks, and endeavours such as St. Clare’s hospitality charity food kitchen in my area. We really should not have anyone living in poverty, and we must make this issue a priority for the Government. I thank everybody.

Chairman

I call Ms Jonsson to address the food query.

Ms Karin Jonsson

Yes, we see a wider variety of people accessing the food bank now, compared to the situation at the beginning of the Covid-19 pandemic. We have only been involved in food bank provision since the end of March 2020. It is not that families working or with a mortgage were not availing of the food bank before, but a larger proportion of them are now. When they come to us, they tell us they have paid their bills. A young couple who came to us recently told us the husband’s money goes to pay the rent and the wife’s money goes to pay the bills, and there is nothing left for food. The couple do not have children, but that is their situation. If they had children, their situation might be even worse. Families also come to us who have paid their mortgages and then have nothing left.

Some of the people we are seeing now have never had to look for help before, so they find it very difficult to ask for help in the first place and then to find it. They have never looked for help with food before, but, equally, they may not have had to seek help with mental health or parenting issues either. The closure of the schools made things very difficult for some parents when children were taught at home through Zoom. Some of them came to us and said they had never had to look for help before. Now they do, and they said they were finding it hard to get the help they needed because the process was labyrinthine and difficult. That is certainly true.

Another thing that has affected people who come to the food bank because of the impact of Covid-19 is the delay in social welfare payments. I refer to the delay in the registration of children, which in turn leads to delayed payments of children’s allowance and the provision of medical cards. We have seen some families who have just received a bill from the hospital for their baby. They have paid the bill, because they always pay all their bills, and have no money left. They did not have to pay the bill, but they did not know that because they have never had to worry about such a situation that much before.

Equally, young adults who have not reached the age of 24 cannot automatically receive the full rate of social welfare payments. There are ways around that situation, but it takes a long time, and much longer now. One young adult accessing our services has €112 a week. His parents died during the last two years and he is still living in the family home. He is being supported and helped to try to resolve these issues, but it is taking time. It is time that people do not necessarily have when they need food to eat or to have to pay their heating bills. We are seeing more of those types of situations now.

Chairman

I call Dr. Keilthy next.

Dr. Tricia Keilthy

Perhaps Ms McGowan might comment on the requests we are receiving for food and similar aspects.

Ms Rose McGowan

From the number of calls we have received, I agree completely that many people did not access our service and would not phone us. They may feel that they just could not take the last step to make a phone call. In every radio and newspaper interview we have done during the pandemic, we have made certain to say that the only criterion to get our help is need. We have emphasised that people should not be afraid to come to us and we have asked them to do so. Some people, however, will always be uncomfortable coming to St. Vincent de Paul. Many more people are living in poverty than the 190,000 calls we receive.

Turning to the issue of the DEIS schools, I agree completely with Deputy Murnane O’Connor. I have spoken to people who enrolled or moved their children to a DEIS school. It was not only due to the availability of free meals in those schools, but also because classroom sizes are smaller and other supports are available. Therefore, this whole area must be explored. Regarding the food aspect, and to give an example, we had a call just before Christmas from a home school liaison teacher. We work closely with schools and the home school liaison system is wonderful. That teacher, who was in a DEIS school, was working with 12 families who would not access help through us, because they said the neighbours would know, etc. We just put 12 bags of food into the boot of the car and delivered them to the school, with toys and books and other things. The activity operated through the system in confidence.

We advised that teacher to sit down with those families in the new year. It was not possible to visit houses, so what she was doing during the year was having families come into the school one day each week. She could not visit their houses on the other days. Now, she is going to work with those families to let them know there are many ways of getting support, even if they do not want us to come out to them. We have childcare facilities in our resource centres, and that shows how important access to childcare is. People trust the teachers in our childcare facilities and resource centres. A rapport is built up, and that means people can access many more things as a result. Teachers refer people to us and explain what our conferences, which are our branches, do. It might involve help with food, school or whatever.

A great many people are living in poverty and, as the Deputy said, it is not always social welfare payment recipients. During the first full lockdown, people working had some savings, but they used them all up. There are no savings now. A couple who had both been working came to us recently. They had both lost their low-paid jobs. One had been working in the hospitality sector. They got the pandemic unemployment payment, PUP, for which they were grateful. A two-bedroom cottage in the inner city of Dublin cost them €1,800 a month. That was the first thing that had to be paid, and then the rest of their bills. Those two people, who had been working, came to us wondering if we had food. We of course told them to come to the food bank and we helped with a bill, etc. They had no children, but that woman did not realise that we would help with a bill for electricity. It is something for us to look at as well in respect of trying to ensure that we get more information out about what we do.

The woman decided to do an online course during Covid to upskill. We helped with the purchase of a laptop. That girl came at Christmas to the food bank to collect because we were doing food plus Christmas food. She came with a box of chocolates, so grateful that we had supported them. They kept their home and kept their bills going. It is to be hoped that in light of the announcement last Friday, they will both be back at work. It is people who are in work at the moment; it is not all social welfare recipients.

Ms Karen Kiernan

I will speak briefly and then Ms Kelly will take over, if that is okay. I wish to address the Deputy's question on family supports and domestic violence. It is not an exaggeration to say there is a crisis for children and their parents in the context of domestic abuse and child abuse and the impact on them. We are learning things now that will haunt us in decades to come in terms of the impact on children. What is there is incredibly insufficient. I refer to the very comprehensive paper on child poverty produced by the council on Better Outcomes, Brighter Futures. There are 11 different areas of concern, one of which is on family support. There is a reason for that, as Ms Jonsson explained earlier. Social welfare rates here may seem high compared with those in other countries but our universal services are very low, so people here have to pay privately for so many things. Prevention, early intervention and family support services, particularly for families experiencing domestic abuse, are critical. We work with one-parent families but people are sharing parenting post-domestic violence and in many cases the domestic abuse continues through into contact visits and sharing. In some cases, ongoing abuse and damage is being done to children and their parents. This may be a family law reform issue, and we can discuss that another day, but it is linked to poverty as well. I will hand over to Ms Kelly.

Ms Niamh Kelly

I will address a couple of the other areas the Deputy mentioned. She referred to the hot school meals programme. I agree that it should be available more widely and that it is a key way to tackle food poverty among families with whom we work. The Deputy's point in respect of DEIS schools is key. This relates not just to hot school meals, but to all supports offered through DEIS. We know that more than half the children who are experiencing disadvantage are not in a DEIS school and do not have access to those supports. We would like to see a system that follow the child so that the children who are disadvantaged but in a non-DEIS school would still have access to those supports. We would like schools that do not have cooking facilities to be able to access the national development plan to retrofit the schools and get better cooking and dining facilities. The introduction of a hot school meal programme in a school has a twofold effect on food poverty. The children get fed in school, but they also may be able to participate in the preparation of food and see the preparation of healthy food. That has a kind of sustainable impact on food poverty.

I refer to the Deputy's remarks on local authority housing. The UN rapporteur on housing spoke last year in Ireland and particularly highlighted the impoverished living conditions of one-parent families. In recent years, it has become an increasingly big issue for the families with whom we work. They have lower rates of home ownership, but also poorer quality of housing. In the context of homeless figures, one-parent families feature heavily. They make up approximately 20% to 25% of families in Ireland but, up until last summer, they represented approximately 50% to 60% of families living in homelessness. I highlight to the committee that the figures on homelessness have not been disaggregated since last summer for two-parent and one-parent families. That is leaving us a little blind and we would like it to be changed such that the figures are divided and show us the picture in respect of one-parent families.

A policy blind spot in terms of housing and throughout the system is that of shared parenting families. We see families where there might not be a formal custody arrangement but dad has custody of the children for half the time and enters into homeless accommodation but cannot access appropriate accommodation for their children. The same is true throughout the housing system. Shared parenting families find it very difficult to access housing for both parents that is suitable for the children. That is really important to maintain the shared parenting relationship. Throughout the system, shared parenting is very much a blind spot. When it comes to housing, social protection and all other areas, people are viewed as either a lone parent or a single adult. That has detrimental effects for the children.

In terms of housing policy, we support what the Deputy said. We definitely need more accommodation built by local authorities and approved housing bodies. We would really like to see a reduction in the over-reliance on the private rental sector to provide social housing. This is a big problem for the families with whom we work because, as all present are aware, top-ups are an issue and the rate of housing assistance payment, HAP, does not always meet the full needs of a property. For a one-parent family, trying to meet that top-up payment is an additional burden. One-parent families are further disadvantaged compared with two-parent families in that situation. As part of, or linking in with, an overall child poverty strategy, we would like to see a family homelessness strategy that addresses some of these concerns and some of the issues arising for one-parent families. Such a strategy would need to speak to and interact with a child poverty strategy such that the two are aligned and working towards the same goals on housing.

Senator Sharon Keogan

I am sorry that I am, unfortunately, coming late to the meeting. I was in the Seanad. I did not get to hear most of our guests' presentations but I am very familiar with the work they do. Indeed, I sent many families to the Society of St. Vincent de Paul through the years and I thank its representatives for all they do in respect of food poverty for families. There are so many wonderful organisations out there, particularly in County Meath, where there is the Meath Food Bank. Ken Smollen in Offaly does great work and delivers to 1,200 families every single month. There is real child poverty out there.

Wearing my other hat, before I was a Senator, I was a county councillor but I also was a foster parent. I saw real child poverty coming through my door on many occasions. The first thing you noticed was the food the children ate and the personal grooming of the children in poverty. As a person from a stable background with full family support, you could tell the children who came from an impoverished household. From their personal grooming and their diet, you could tell that money was not around to support the child growing up into a health lifestyle.

What we really need are far more supports for families and parents. How do we support these parents to help them be better parents and guardians of children? If we do not get that right, we will never be able to fix the issue in respect of poverty. We have to train parents to be better parents. There is family support available from Tusla but people run a mile from that organisation. They do not want to get involved in that even though the supports are there for families. They just do not want to pick up the phone to call Tusla and tell it they are struggling and need help.

The type of housing is a major consideration with child poverty, as well as the communities in which these people live. I agree 100% with Deputy Murnane O'Connor about a hot meals programme being available in all schools. There are people we might think are not impoverished but I assure the committee there are examples in middle class Ireland as well. They pay all the bills but they may not have the necessities to feed their family.

I had an issue with one particular child who came into my care. I will not give a name but she was a 12-year-old girl. I would never have considered the issue but she came in with a hoodie and tracksuit bottoms. She had no other clothing because she came in the middle of the night. The following day, after getting to know her a little bit, I went shopping with her. She told me she is not like the other girls in her class because she does not have any money to get her hair or nails done or wear nice clothes. Everything is a hand-me-down. She said she does not identify as a boy or a girl yet. I said "look it, you are just you for now". I brought her into a shop and the first section she went to was the girls' clothing, where she picked out all these lovely girls' clothes she wanted to buy. I never really thought that poverty could play a part in determining one's gender in life. She was wearing hand-me-downs from her brother and that is all she was getting at home. She had not looked for girls' clothing as a result. As soon as she got the opportunity, she went to buy the little tops and cardigans, along with a pair of trousers. I wondered if children are choosing a gender because they are living in poverty. Could that be a reason for children having gender identity issues? I never really associated poverty with gender identity issues until that very moment. It was certainly an eye-opener for me.

I do not know how we can address that. Is there a programme for young girls so we can support them with clothing appropriate to their age? I know there are various charity shops, including the Society of St. Vincent de Paul. Do they get much clothing for young teenage girls or is it mainly for adults? Perhaps the witnesses could address those matters?

Chairman

Before having the witnesses reply, I wonder if Senator Erin McGreehan is on the call. I know she had to be in the Seanad earlier. If she has anything to ask, she might do so before we wrap this up. With the Dáil and Seanad sitting at the same time as the committee, it can be hard to juggle everything. As these are the final set of questions, witnesses might make any concluding remarks now as well.

Ms Karen Kiernan

The Senator asked a very interesting question about family support and how to support parents. In Ireland, we have gradually moved to a more positive parenting structure. An example of where we are not doing it, however, is the child benefit issue raised by Senator Ruane earlier, which is a punitive measure on the child and parent. Much of the structure we have, whether it is in the voluntary sector, Tusla or the HSE is predicated on positive parenting and supporting people to do their very best. It is a massively under-resourced sector compared with other countries in terms of getting a focus on prevention and early intervention right. Tusla has a very difficult job because it has so many crises that are expensive to deal with. We know that if we invest universally for children in family supports, it brings much better results.

We can look at Scandinavian countries, where parenting support is not stigmatised. That is because every parent, whether it is a first or fifth pregnancy, does a parenting programme. It is completely universal and non-stigmatising. The voluntary organisations are funded in a way to support people with parenting challenges and the state has a different role in terms of supporting the child and keeping them safe. There is perhaps more of a distinction than we have in Ireland and that is one way in which this could work well.

One Family is 50 years old this year and we were set up as Cherish back in 1972 and we still work with many women who do not want to be pregnant or be parents but who end up parenting. That is a really difficult position and there are frequently not the kind of therapeutic and practical supports for them and their child that would allow them to bond and have a lifelong relationship. A reluctant mother is not spoken about widely but such people are real. They exist and this can happen in any socioeconomic background. It is important that infant and mental health services continue to be supported and built on in this country.

The Senator had a question about transgender young people and queries about gender identity. I know from my own life that this is a very complex area and, with respect, I suggest it is not linked to the availability of clothing. It is probably a little more complicated than that but it may be that a young person was perceived to be male or teased as being male because of clothing. That may not relate specifically to gender identity, although it is possibly a discussion for a more expert organisation, such as BeLonG To. It would be very helpful in that area.

My main concluding message is that we believe there is a very valuable and comprehensive report on child poverty that has been prepared and made available to the Minister, Deputy Roderic O'Gorman, and this committee. It lays out the structure, research and 11 areas of focus, with recommendations under each one. That is the pathway to developing a national child poverty action plan, which is what we need in Ireland. The Department of Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth is currently leading with the EU Child Guarantee and an action plan to go with that, it is somewhat small-scale. The funding coming from that is small-scale compared with what we need. We need a higher level national child poverty action plan and we really hope the committee will be able to support the development of that in partnership with us and others over the coming months and years.

Chairman

We received that report and it was circulated to members. We have had a number of hearings on child poverty. When we, as a committee, draft our report we will certainly look to the report sent by One Family. It has been very helpful and I thank One Family for sending it.

Dr. Tricia Keilthy

I thank the Senator for her questions and raising some important points. We can speak to our experience of parenting support. We conducted research in 2018 involving interviews with 30 families living in poverty. That indicated in detail their experience of living below the minimum essential standard of living. For those parents, there was much shame and guilt associated with their children growing up in poverty. They did everything they could to minimise the impact of poverty on their children's lives, trying every way they could to ensure they were able to do what other children take for granted, such as going on school trips, having nutritious food when they could afford it and things like that. There was much feeling of guilt in those parents when they had to say "no" to their children.

We asked the parents what they wanted or what would help their situation. Across the board, it was really about good quality jobs, being able to access training that would support them in getting better quality jobs and almost every family said childcare was the number one need. In our experience, it is a lack of income and not a lack of parenting ability that influences a child's experience of poverty. Those parents just need the right supports at the right time to ensure they can build a better life for their children. That is really about ensuring we have affordable childcare and affordable housing that is accessible and of good quality.

The Senator raised a really important point around standards. We see families who are in very poor-quality accommodation.

Due to the current state of the market, they feel they have no other option but to accept very substandard accommodation, in particular in the private rental sector. We need to ensure housing is of good quality, as well as being affordable, because energy poverty is a very real issue for many families.

We spoke about food poverty a lot, and we see it in almost every facet of community organisations. It is a symptom of wider issues. In our experience, when times are tough, the one area families have discretion over is the food budget. It comes down to addressing the drivers of food poverty, such as low pay and inaccessible public services, and ensuring that families are supported. The blueprint is in the Better Outcomes, Brighter Future paper. We know what policies are needed. We know what the problems are. It is now about taking action and ensuring that the resources are there to address this for once and for all.

Ms Karin Jonsson

It is expensive to be poor. People cannot bulk buy or afford energy bulbs. People may not have transport and instead have to do their shopping in a corner shop or nearby convenience store because they cannot access larger supermarkets where prices might be cheaper. That is a hindrance.

There are lot of things many people could do, such as learning about budgeting, cooking and storing food, but as long as people do not have surety of food now, a home or the ability to pay an electricity bill, there is no way they can focus on those things. We need people to escape the immense stress and trauma of not having the very basics. When security is there and the stress is lifted, we can then start talking about the things that might make life even better, such as training, education, cooking, budgeting, giving up cigarettes or whatever else it might be. That is not something people can deal with when they do not know if they are going to have an enough food tomorrow or be able to heat their houses.

This is a long-term process. Policy changes and changes in society will help, as will the work local organisations can do to support people. It is not going to happen overnight, even when we work with families. They need to build trust with us and befriend us, which takes time. When we give that time and put in that effort, things can change fundamentally for a family and the next generation.

The girl to which a Senator referred reminded me of one thing we have noticed, namely, period property. We have linked in with an organisation addressing period poverty Dublin a couple of times, which is great. When we have funds, it is something we can spend some money on because we notice how very popular and important those items are. They may not seem very expensive, but in many families women and girls are not getting enough period products.

I thank everyone for their invitation and being able to share some of our information and stories. I look forward to whatever good happens in the future.

Chairman

I want to express our very sincere thanks to Ms Kiernan and Ms Kelly from One Parent Family, Dr. Keilthy and Ms McGowan from the St. Vincent de Paul and Ms Jonsson.

I do not know if "interesting" is the correct word because this is such an difficult topic, but Ms McGowan put it very well when she said in 2022 we are still talking about food poverty and families in Ireland not being able to afford food. That is not a good reflection on our society. This has been helpful for us because we are examining the overall topic of child poverty, on which we will compile a report. I appreciate the witnesses coming before us and answer all of the questions posed. It is to be hoped we will have ongoing engagement on other topics with the witnesses. I thank members. Is it agreed to publish the opening statements on the Oireachtas website? Agreed.

The joint committee adjourned at 5.35 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Tuesday, 1 February 2021.