Ms Audry Deane:

We were delighted to see the amicable protest outside and welcome the wide level of support for the equality budgeting campaign with which the Society of St. Vincent de Paul has recently become associated. While we are not experts in this field, from our own intuition and that of our members, of whom there are 10,500, who link the impact of the lack of an equality-budgeting approach to how they experience access to social welfare benefits, we welcome the opportunity to discuss this briefly with the committee.

We understand what is meant by an approach to economic decision-making and planning that puts equality at the heart of decision-making concerning public expenditure and income. We believe that equality audits and impact assessments are the tools for doing so, and we take no issue with that. We support evidenced-based decision making because we believe this must be the way forward if we are to get the best from scarce resources. We understand this to mean evaluating the impact that expenditure and resources have on specific groups and, importantly, finding out who benefits from economic policy measures and who does not.

It improves transparency, which is also very positive.

Through our work and the people sitting in kitchens, we are aware of the unintended outcomes that can occur when policy decision making is done without robust tools. For example, the absence of poverty-proofing has had very negative impacts on households that we have worked with, particularly in the domestic waste area. It was almost ten years ago that it was introduced by the Department and it affected poor households disproportionately, causing a degree of social unrest. It did not do any of us proud and the problem was compounded by very inconsistent approaches by the various service providers and income gatherers.

This issue was raised by our volunteer group, the vast majority of which are engaged in household visitation. We got a critical on-the-ground perspective of how poorly planned policies and cuts to income supports can have a very negative impact. With education, it is of no surprise to members, who will have heard it from a variety of sources, that the cumulative nature of the erosion or explicit rationing of supports to those who have the least ability to buy private commoditised goods - whether it is grinds or educational psychological assessments, as noted by Deputy Ó Ríordáin - is an issue. If people can afford a few hundred euro for them, they will get through the system more quickly and have access to more resources. There is a range of issues predicated on an ability to pay. Uniforms, books, voluntary contributions, trips and equipment are issues for our members, and there is an inability to pay for persistent demands which has eroded the poorest families' ability to achieve a minimum essential standard of living.

We do not have much time but we are aware from a variety of sources that the most recent budgets have had a negative impact on those with the least on which to live. I know there are many statistics in the presentation, and we want to engage with members.