Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister for joining us and her contribution. I will focus on some of the issues that have arisen. As a number of the questions I would have asked have been addressed, I will try to build further on them.

As the Minister knows, I long advocated in my previous life for an increase in the home caring credit in the context of pensions, with reference to the 20-year provision. Regarding the T12, however, I have a concern about the threshold being pushed out to 40 years and 20 years of home caring credits being considered within that timeframe. I would be concerned if we were to move towards a 40-year contribution requirement in the pension system, which is one of the options on the table. There were consultations during the summer, but perhaps the issue was not described as clearly as it could have been. Many found the consultation process difficult to navigate. ICTU which represents a large volume of workers has expressed serious concerns about the goal posts being moved towards a figure 40 years. The Minister discussed considering other ideas to supplement the Social Insurance Fund for the self-employed. I ask that the State bring similar creativity to finding ways to address and recognise caring without necessarily pushing out the threshold.

I have a smaller but more detailed concern and I am sure the Minister's officials will have indicated that they are examining it. It relates to carers who have not had contributions made on their behalf because they returned to caring and fell out of the contributory pension system. There is a gender inequality dimension to pensions. A strong concern of mine is that the budget should be gender and equality proofed. Such proofing is planned to be intensified this year. The Committee on Budgetary Oversight has asked that Departments, specifically the Minister's, consider using the expanded simulated welfare and income tax changes, SWITCH, model when conducting gender analyses of and tests on their budgetary measures. What are the Minister's plans in that regard?

The litmus test of whether a gender equality perspective will be brought to next year's social protection budget relates to lone parents. This is an issue on which the Minister has engaged. In January she spoke at the ESRI about unwinding the cuts. I recognise that she has a concern in that regard and that some measures were taken in the previous budget, but a few specific elements need to be addressed in the upcoming budget.

The question of the qualified child increase is important as it relates to teenagers. I realise there are wider issues in terms of services and supports that the Minister spoke to eloquently. Those problems affect everybody but children in lone parent families are up to three times more likely to be in consistent poverty. There are additional and specific supports that need to be addressed in that area and the qualified child increase is one such area. We talked about the cost of teenagers. There is a problem at the moment that lone parents leave the jobseeker transitional payment when their child reaches the age of 14. That is a time when additional costs, difficulties and challenges kick in but the caring obligations and work they are doing becomes effectively invisible to the system. This is not simply about cost, but about recognition too. If we were to widen the eligibility for the jobseeker transitional payment to allow for those with children up to the age of 18, it would mean they would be able to work full-time or part-time, according to their needs. It would mean they could access income disregard. The additional supports of the system would continue to be directed to them. That change, from 14 to 18, would make a significant difference.

I recognise that children's allowance is a universal payment. There is a concern for situations where children have dropped out of school and there are vulnerabilities that surround such cases. There are concerns as to whether parents can lose child benefit payments and there have been questions on that. A situation where a child is dropping out of school might be an indicator of vulnerability and might be a time when families need more support rather than less.

On the fall in community employment schemes, lone parent advocates in particular have raised the fact that, while there is a general improvement across childcare, specific schemes, like the childcare, education and training support, CETS, scheme and the community employment childcare, CEC, scheme, have fallen away a little bit. There is a concern that some of the additional targeted childcare supports for people taking part in schemes might need to be looked at again because they are falling through the cracks.

The quality of outcome is an issue in many areas and was mentioned earlier in the context of quality part-time education access. There are also quality part-time employment measures which eliminate a binary choice between precarious and full-time employment but rather create quality part-time employment routes for people who are trying to balance childcare with the rebuilding of a labour market attachment.

There are also many overlaps in schemes and grants. That was something that this committee spoke about for people with disabilities and the Minister will be looking at the report of the committee on that matter. The back to education allowance, the student universal support Ireland, SUSI, grant and rent allowance intersect and people find there are obstacles to going back into education.

Education options need to be put on the table. Activation of that includes a question of shifting towards an education first model, which would be my preference, or at least an education equal model. There are a number of ways in which people can fall between the cracks. It can be the luck of the draw as to at what point one ends up on the live register whether one gets offered a college course or pushed into a two-week training course. That can make the difference and that is a real concern because we want to make sure that everybody is accessing the right option, and the best option, for them.

Given the new, wider remit that the Minister's Department has, how is the Department going to engage with other Departments about the quality of employment? That will be important in the budgetary context. The Minister said that people do not want to suggest tax areas. I will happily do so. We need significant changes in the hospitality sector. There are so many staff in that sector who are still working in poor conditions and poor employment. We need to question the VAT rate for that sector if changes are not made.

We are spending more than €2 billion in private pension tax relief. I think the figure of €17 million that was mentioned, and the figure of €290 million that Senator Ardagh mentioned, is a drop in the ocean compared to the €2.3 billion in private pension tax relief. The Minister and I have spoken about this in the Seanad and she will have the figure herself. Is this marginal rate, which disproportionately benefits higher earners, the best investment and recognition of contribution across the board?

This is a little outside the budgetary issue, but there are still ministerial concerns about the public service card. We saw in the media last week, however much the media should be trusted, that there were serious concerns about the sharing of data across Departments as part of the single customer view dataset that comprises the public services card dataset. Is there a satisfactory legal basis for that and, if there is not, what measures might be taken? I have raised concerns previously with the Minister about the issue of biometric data and what is to be recognised and not recognised as biometric data. There are cases of contractors who were called biometric and then renamed themselves. Under fundamental European definitions, some aspects of the single customer review dataset are likely to end up being in that area of biometric data and different and appropriate protections must be made.

This is not simply expenditure. Social protection is fundamentally the investment we make in our social fabric. It is something that needs to be recognised as not simply an output but an investment in the idea that we are living together and that aspect of social solidarity. We should not apologise for the size of the budget - in fact, I think it should be increased. The Minister reflects that part of the social solidarity equation and she should feel strong in pressing for further resources in these areas.