Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

Yes. I have just a couple. I wish to pick up on where the conversation left off. If any of the witnesses have further thoughts on the Constitution element, we would be very interested in hearing them. We have examined the constitutional issues a lot from a legal perspective but, of course, they have significant implications for social policy, legislation and the kinds of measures put in place. While the detail would not be in the Constitution, the citizens were really clear that they want a reasonable-efforts or reasonable-measures requirement to be imposed on the State in respect of its offering of support. The citizens' recommendations on care and social protection attempt to envisage or provide an example of what the reasonable measures might be; however, the core aspect is that there would be a requirement on the State and that recognition would not be solely symbolic but, rather, have effect. That was really clear. If any of the witnesses have thoughts on this, we would welcome them. It is significant because the exact wording has implications.

The implications in the past were such that there was, under the protections of the Constitution, a different requirement for lone parents than for those who were married. I refer to there not having been a core requirement regarding full-time availability on social protection, whereas there was for lone parents once the child reached the age of 14. This is an example of where we need to look at the big picture and to the effects, which can be very specific.

I have one question on the big picture and a couple on the other element. I agree on the recognition of care and its importance. There is a dilemma whereby, although you want the care to be recognised and valued, it is not simply about putting a monetary value on each hour.

It is about the latter in terms of employment and, perhaps, participation, but it cannot be about these alone because many of the dividends come out in other places. We talked about both the dangers and benefits. The general social benefit is 3.5 times the individual benefit. In my first question, I was referring to the cost of care. This is not about the idea of the million-dollar man or that kind of thing; it is more about the fact that, at the moment, care does have a cost. It benefits society in an amorphous way, in that the overall benefit, which is 3.5 times greater, may not be felt by the individuals giving the care but the cost is very much borne by individuals. Therefore, individuals carry a huge cost. In that regard, one of the interesting ways of measuring I have heard about is in terms of time poverty. I mentioned that deprivation is an issue. Is it a matter of using social indicators related to levels of deprivation and time poverty as measures if individuals are effectively carrying the cost of care even though society is getting the general benefits?

I am very interested in what has been done in Buenos Aires and a few other places around the world. They have started measuring time poverty because it interlinks with economic poverty and particularly affects those who are parenting alone. Have the witnesses thoughts on that?

Rewarding care in the ecological sense represents a really interesting frame. It is actually crucial. Rather than just having carbon markets as one blunt measure in respect of the environmental action, ecological care may be a little more amorphous, as was said. Things like a clean beach or a thriving ecosystem are not as unitable as are carbon markets. That is why I believe in rewarding people for how they spend their time arises. The participation piece is interesting because it recognises time as an input into the world, not just an output.

I want to return to the cost aspect and the inequalities in the current system. I acknowledge we have talked about a universal pension, which is what the citizens want. However, I am concerned about what is to happen in the interim, or right now. Even the Pensions Commission report, for example, does not include the approximately €2 billion or €2.4 billion spent on private pension tax relief. The commission did not consider that; that was a separate area of consideration. Then we had these conversations about what we could afford or not in terms of care and fixing the care or a universal pension.

In a way, our social protection system is meant to be distributive and that is why the idea of filtering out the very wealthy is fair. The social welfare system is meant to be redistributive in terms of raising our general social floor but at the moment our economic system it is redistributive upwards, whereby those on the very highest incomes are getting supplemented by way of tax relief on their private pensions to an amount substantially similar to, if not quite equal to, the amount being spent to address the care deficit in the pensions system, for example. We need to be naming these issues.

I mentioned earlier the danger if we opt for a 40-year contributory system. Again, I believe we should have a universal pension. However, if we move to a 40-year system, with only 20 years recognised for care, we could trap many women again in that they would be paying for the cost of care. That would be an inequality.

I want to have that conversation about the universal side of it, because that is where we need to go, but I also want to make sure we as a committee acknowledge and tackle measures that are reinforcing care inequality and putting the cost of care onto women.