Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I will try to avoid wider policy issues but will focus on the budgetary issues. However, I want to comment on the costings for some of the proposals we have heard. I appreciate the quality of material we get from the Department but it would be useful to have a sense of how measures impact on consistent poverty. The Department has worked on minimum essential standards of living and it would be useful to know how our current payment rates compared with the Department's figures in that area.

A priority area that has been mentioned at some length is that of lone parents.

If we are looking at the consistent poverty targets that the Department has outlined for itself - reducing consistent poverty to 4% by this year, which is obviously not yet achieved, and to 2% by 2020 - then the fact that we have a consistent poverty rate of 22% for lone parents must be treated as a matter of urgent concern. It must be a priority. I am aware that the Department is examining this area and I urge it to ensure that resources are allocated within the budget to allow it to respond in that area.

I have two specific recommendations and I hope we will have a chance to debate this area in more detail in the future. I recommend the resourcing of a financial impact assessment and, for those who would qualify for jobseeker's transitional payment, looking at providing that somebody could be on both family income supplement and jobseeker's transitional payment, although it would be suitably means tested to ensure that it is not anomalous. That would come with a cost but it would address many concerns. The other concerns, in relation to the anomalies involving the back-to-education allowance, SUSI grants and rent supplement, are not as simple as a payment rise but, because they would increase the number of people qualifying for certain schemes, resources would need to be allocated in the budget.

I would like to highlight one particular vulnerable group. The McMahon report highlighted those in direct provision. The payment has remained the same for over a decade. It is €19.10. The McMahon report was clear on the need to increase the payment. That is something that must be on the agenda in terms of sending a clear and important signal, particularly at a time when we have seen such increased vulnerability and, indeed, increases in racism in Irish society.

The issue of those under the age of 26 has been highlighted previously by Deputy Gino Kenny. It is crucial that we look to that. We do not know yet the full impact of the changes on those under 26. We do not know what impact that has had on emigration. We know that people are leaving, often from low-paid jobs, but we also do not know to what extent the driver - the feeling that they do not have the same safety net as the rest of society - has been a consideration. It is something we need to look at. If we are to plan in the long term around pensions, it is, of course, a serious long-term cost and concern if those who are under 26 in Ireland do not feel valued. We need to look at restoration of the payments, beginning, certainly, with full payment for those who are on courses or in training. That has been recommended by the National Youth Council of Ireland.

Moving to the other end of the age spectrum, the pension system has been mentioned. I would ask the Minister to address how the proposals he might put forward or is considering, both in the longer term and also in the shorter term in terms of budget 2017, will address the pension gender gap. Ireland has a pension gender gap of 37%, which has increased from 35%. This is a core concern. We will have an opportunity to debate the proposals that we have spoken about, in terms of the long-term and future auto-enrolment scheme. Some of the proposals we have seen are merely a flat-rate increase at the top, but what I am concerned about is the fact that only 16% of those receiving the full contributory pension are women. Eighty-four per cent are men, and while the pension rate may not have been cut at the top full rate, the reduced-rate pension has been cut. It has been cut in terms of changing the qualification criteria, which has had a disproportionate impact on women. It has also been cut at the very base levels of contribution - just a flat cut. We are looking really at the fact whereby pensions for women in Ireland, in addition to all the costs the charges that were outlined by Deputy O'Dea bring to families, have been reduced. That must be a priority and we need to see that as a priority in the next steps in terms of pensions. It is a more complex issue and it needs a more complex response.

Qualification for voluntary credits is also a notable issue. We talk about contributions to the PRSI system. It has become more difficult, particularly for women returning to workplace, to make voluntary contributions. The threshold of previous contributions required has raised. That is something that can be examined.

Moving from pensions, I want to highlight a particular issue in terms of employment measures. There are proposals in relation to the long-term unemployment. It is clear that one of the core problems we have now is addressing long-term unemployment, and constructive proposals have been put forward about how we begin to address this, but we also need to look fundamentally at the question of quality of employment.

With the issues that were raised in relation to JobBridge and the issues that might be raised in relation to any review of the new Seetec schemes, the quality measure is crucial because people are finding that employment is no longer a guarantee of moving out of poverty. It is a real concern that Ireland, according to the Department's own report, has among the highest at-risk-of-poverty levels prior to social transfers within Europe. This shows us that not everybody is moving out of poverty and that many of those who are in employment are still reliant on social transfers. In terms of the long-term development of the Department, an area that will need research and resources allocated to it for research is clear measures of quality employment, looking to every lever that the Department might have, how it is using those levers rather than simply addressing the damage of short-term and precarious employment which it is doing successfully, and how it can engage with other Departments to demand stronger measures on quality employment. That is a crucial area which needs to be resourced.

In terms of risks, we have often heard the self-employed described as risk takers but I noted with interest the point in the Minister's speech that parenting is also mentioned as a risk. Of course, it should not be a risk. Parenting should be something that people can rely on and plan on, and it is calculated as a major contribution to society. It is what allows us to replicate and build and plan for the future as a society together. I welcome strongly the commitment to paternity leave, and especially the commitment to an awareness campaign to ensure that it is taken up. However, I believe there is a need for a fundamental examination of the contribution of care and how we recognise it, how we ensure that people are able to balance care and employment in the most constructive way, how we build routes back, for example, through a care credit - it is an issue I have raised previously with the Minister and I am sure we will get to debate in the future - and how a care credit might be useful not only in terms of pension equality, but also as a route of re-entry to the employment market.

Returning to the question of risks, I welcome that the Minister highlighted the importance of building a robust system which builds a surplus, which is responsive to risk in that sense and to any future instability. There may be also a need to build responsiveness to opportunities. For example, although we are not here to discuss the Apple tax case which will be discussed in other arenas today, nonetheless, in preparing for all outcomes, if in four years' time Ireland was to find itself in a position in which it had to look to accepting €13 billion, it would be important that the Department of Social Protection would have strong ambitious proposals in place to ensure that such moneys benefited the most vulnerable in society. I believe the Commission has indicated there would be flexibility if that were to be the outcome.

The Minister understands that the social protection system is not simply a safety net, but is the foundation of society. It is something everybody relies on; it is crucial. The Department of Social Protection has shown leadership in the past around thinking with the whole of society lens. I note the Department led the way, for example, in terms of looking at social impact. I urge the Department to engage. I note that the Committee on Budgetary Oversight has highlighted the Department of Social Protection as one of the core Departments which can look to engage with the equality and gender-proofing commitment around budgetary practice. The social impact assessment system and the SWITCH model, while strong, are not yet adequate in terms of addressing the equality concerns and I believe the Department could show real leadership by allocating a budget line to the delivery of the public duty on equality and human rights to planning how it can be concretely delivered, which is a requirement by all under IHREC.

I look forward to debating all of these issues further in the future.