Joe O'Reilly (Cavan-Monaghan, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

Yes, but in this instance there is no avoiding the question. None of us can avoid the issue. One cannot be on both sides of the argument.

I missed the presentation, but if I understood the document correctly, I agree with the stated need for job activation. We should not treat jobseeker’s payments as a paternalistic welfare payment to keep the poor at bay and to keep them fed and leave them in perpetual unemployment. There should be job activation, support, training and education. I am a great believer in that, but a person should be supported when, through human frailty or lack of opportunity due to geography or other factors, he or she cannot get a foot on any ladder. There is no suggestion to the contrary, but where we can introduce job activation measures and training, we should do so and such an approach should be aggressively pursued. I commend the Tánaiste and Minister for Social Protection, Deputy Burton, who has prioritised such an approach to social welfare. We must deliver more. I would welcome the comments of witnesses in that regard.

The experience of Finland and all empirical evidence to date suggests the Youth Guarantee is the greatest vehicle for tackling potential long-term unemployment, social deprivation and generational unemployment. For that reason the Youth Guarantee should be implemented. We are a bit tardy about it. I understand €6 billion is available. I would welcome a comment on the implementation of the Youth Guarantee, where we stand in regard to it, whether we are making sufficient progress and what more could be done.

Child care was cited as an issue. I accept the point. That is the reason we must broaden the tax net and be straight up about such matters. I am a teacher by profession, and from observation and basic savvy, what is needed in child care is to extend the early childhood year to two years. There is no better piece of social engineering to create equality of opportunity, a fairer society and to rebuild a society that has been torn by recession and austerity that arose from a situation of boom and bust. We should introduce a second year of early childhood education. Many of the people who are posturing on the new forms of taxation aimed at bringing equity and broadness to the tax net should address such a question. If one takes a dysfunctional or difficult family, or even the average family, nothing is better for a family than for children to be able to avail of a few hours in a supported environment with qualified people for education and socialisation. It gives the parents a break and provides them with opportunities for work, to train for a job that they might not otherwise have, to engage in job activation and to make applications for jobs. Thankfully, more job opportunities are coming on stream than was previously the case.

Do the witnesses agree that the greatest piece of social engineering in terms of child care would be a second year of free child care? I have argued for its implementation in every forum available. Do the witnesses also agree with my point on the Youth Guarantee and job activation? Do they further agree with what I said on broadening the tax base and that it is hypocritical to be in favour of social egalitarianism, equality of opportunity and fairness and yet to be against measures to broaden the tax net?