Aideen Hayden (Labour) | Oireachtas source

Could the witnesses be more specific about what type of tax reform they would like to see? We stand at a moment, going forward into the next budget, where we have more room for manoeuvre and it is important that the voices represented by the witnesses be heard very strongly in terms of what type of tax reform is important. Would they share the views of TASC, for example, in regard to some of the proposals that they put forward? Social Justice Ireland has a number of specific recommendations. Are there two or three specific measures that we should be pursuing in the context of economic policy over the next 12 to 18 months? I am thinking of the universal social charge as a possible issue.
In relation to the macro-economic goals themselves, I agree that all changes need to be challenged looking at the complex issues of reducing poverty and social exclusion. There is an issue as to how the budgetary process works, and a number of people would like to see that process changed. This idea that people walk in with a briefcase, or it is announced in the Sunday Independentor The Sunday Business Post a couple of days before the budget itself is announced, is a very poor way to do business. At this point in the year, we should be starting to look at next year's budget and engaging with all groupings about how the budgetary process should work. Do the witnesses have any thoughts on how we as a committee and the parliamentary system overall should be facilitating social inclusion and engaging with economic groups as part of the budgetary process?
One of the specific issues relates to low work-intensity households. The recession has brought a lot of the issues around youth unemployment into sharp focus. In some ways, it seems to be masking more structural issues in the Irish economy. In 2012, I think, the OECD produced a report stating that Ireland had the second-highest rate of households in which no member was actively participating in the labour market. Since that report was published, I believe we have risen to the highest rate. This is not a situation that arose yesterday or the day before. While I agree with my colleague about the importance of the Youth Guarantee, I believe we have a more fundamental problem with labour market activation, particularly for groups such as people with disabilities, women, or older people who are facing discrimination. Do the witnesses have any specific views on how that deep structural problem can be tackled?
In regard to climate change, we have a more immediate problem in fuel poverty. Looking at the statistics that were published in the last pre-budget submission by the Society of St. Vincent de Paul, the amount of money that the average family on social welfare or a low income has to pay just to stay warm has increased by a headline figure of, I believe, about 40% over the last years. People have a right to be warm, and there are measures that we have to take in the shorter term to enable people to be warm in their homes. How could some of the current welfare measures be improved and how do we get to groups that are not currently being assisted through these types of measures?
There is an issue around women's pension entitlements, particularly for older women, and their capacity to take of themselves in older age. How can that be tackled for women who find themselves unable to get pension benefits in older age?
In terms of low work-intensity households, the partnerships are undergoing a process of reform at the moment. Do the witnesses have any views on that? The partnerships have contributed enormously to overall social inclusion issues and to work participation, particularly in some of the black-spot communities that I am aware of in Dublin and other parts of the country. I would not like to see that process in any way dissipated because the partnerships are fundamental to tackling social inclusion issues.
Access to finance is one of the main issues for low-income households. I am sure the witnesses are aware that the Central Bank recently commented on the need for people to have a 20% deposit to apply for a mortgage, and that they will only be able to borrow two-and-a-half or three times their income. We do not have a rental system that facilitates people living long-term in social rental, and we certainly do not have nearly enough social housing to tackle the shortage, even with the Government's expanded programme. How do the witnesses foresee people being able to access housing in the future, and do they believe that the current financial system is adequate, particularly for the needs of people on lower incomes? We have a certain level of access to borrowing through the credit unions, but do we have a banking system that is adequate to the needs of people on lower incomes?
The issue of mortgage arrears was raised in the Country-Specific Recommendations themselves. It was not specifically mentioned by the witnesses. Given the wide range of groups that they represent, would they have any comments on how the issue of mortgage arrears is panning out, particularly for people who might have been very high-risk borrowers at the time they took out mortgage finance, and who may now be experiencing poverty?
I fully agree with the second year of early childhood education, but there is a need to distinguish between affordable childcare and early childhood education. Early childhood education-----