Dr. Mary Murphy:

I would like to make two last points. One concerns data and appreciating the benefits of doing this in the longer term. There are short-term implications for administrative resources in the Department but they can be overcome. There are implications in having a sufficient number of activation resources. If we are bringing more people into potential eligibility, we want to be able to satisfy the legitimate demand that might be created. To some degree there is an argument that we have to increase budgets around activation measures. The EU's social investment package stresses that we need to calculate the cost-benefit analysis of putting in extra activation programmes. We should get a quick social return on that investment. Within a year we would begin to see the benefits of reduced social welfare payments and increased revenue.

We must get smarter about showing the economic benefits of investing in these activation programmes. They should be made available in a way whereby those who can best utilise them can return the investment as quickly as possible. There are data issues regarding how we measure the social impact of these matters.

Pension incentives are important. People might ask why we are talking about pensions when we are discussing activation, but many women realise they will need a decent pension later on or will have their own independent pension. To that end, they know they will need to work at some stage. They not only want to return to work now but also want to secure their future in old age. Opening up eligibility for pensions and making it easier to access them ties in with incentivising women in such households to work.

Tangible things could be done that do not have massive resource implications but which open up gateways to provide stuff incrementally that might have resource implications down the road. One need only take those steps when one knows one can fund them. They are certainly a gateway to greater individualisation in social welfare and taxation.